Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Pavilion, Hyde Park (Changing Facilities)

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Works whether the pavilion, situated by the bowling green in Hyde Park, can be made available to footballers for changing facilities.

The Minister of Works (Mr. David Eccles): Footballers already have the use of the washing facilities and the lavatories in this pavilion and I am arranging for them to use the remainder of the pavilion next season for changing. There will be room for only two teams at a time; a charge will be made to cover attendant's wages and the cost of cleaning.

Mr. Harvey: Does the Minister know that his reply will give very great satisfaction to many people who use this park for recreational purposes?

Halstead Place, Kent (Repairs)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Works, in view of the fact that the Kent County Council has a claim against his Department for reinstatement of the premises and site known as Halstead Place, Kent, of £6,037 5s., if he will state who was responsible for allowing this property to deteriorate; and if

he will take disciplinary action against those concerned.

Mr. Eccles: Neither the extent of the dilapidations nor the amount of my Department's liability has yet been agreed. I see no ground at present to consider any disciplinary action.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that I visited Halstead Place yesterday? The fabric appears to be in quite good order. Cannot something be done to save the building, in view of the strong local opinion? Would it not be much cheaper to repair it than to pull it down and build a new one? Is this not further evidence of the evils of State control and the waste of public money?

Mr. Eccles: I hope that the result of the report will be to show that the building is worth repair.

Building Control Regulations (Personal Labour)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Works if he will take steps to exempt the cost of the time spent by a person building his own house from the £100 limit.

Mr. Eccles: It is already the practice, for the purposes of building control regulations, to exclude from the cost of work the value of the personal labour of the building owner himself.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister remove all obstacles to the building of small homes and set the people free?

Mr. Eccles: That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing.

Direct Labour Staff, Liverpool

Mr. David Logan: asked the Minister of Works why Herbert Foy and nine other men are considered redundant at the Ministry of Works, 60/62, Soho Street, Liverpool; and if he will make further efforts to retain their services.

Mr. Eccles: The amount of building maintenance work to be carried out by direct labour in Liverpool has been reduced and the services of these men are no longer required.

Mr. Logan: Was not the understanding that elderly men would be retained? Is


it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman's Office to carry out what they have told these people they would do?

Mr. Eccles: We have found that in Liverpool certain building maintenance work can be done considerably cheaper by contract. These men are being discharged in strict accordance with the redundancy agreement which we have entered into with the trade union.

Mr. Logan: Surely the principles of redundancy are not effective in this question of economy? These men will have to draw relief, and the difference between what the Ministry would pay by contract and what he would pay these men would keep the men employed.

Mr. Eccles: The hon. Member will agree that my responsibility is to do the job efficiently and cheaply. As I have found that it can be done more efficiently by contract, I have no choice but to reduce my staff.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Would the Minister say how he can make this comparison between the work done by his Department and the work done by contract? How can he come to any conclusion until he has tried both?

Mr. Eccles: I have tried direct labour.

National Insurance Office, Strathaven

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Minister of Works the estimated cost of the new offices now being built at Strathaven which the Ministry of National Insurance is to occupy; when the expenditure was authorised; and how much steel will have been used in this undertaking.

Mr. Eccles: The estimated cost of the new office at Strathaven which is to be jointly occupied by the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and the Ministry of National Insurance, is approximately £20,000. The expenditure was authorised on 4th September, 1950. 10½ tons of steel will be used in the construction.

Mr. Maitland: Does not my right hon. Friend consider that the expenditure of money, labour and steel involved in this construction could be better applied to either domestic or school building?

Mr. Eccles: The work began in January, 1951, and will be completed in

June, 1952. I think my hon. Friend will agree that we had better finish the job, whatever the standards were when it was begun.

Mr. Maitland: Would it not be possible even at this late stage to economise in the use of steel for this construction and thus make it available for other purposes, such as school buildings which are badly needed not far away?

Mr. Eccles: I think not, since there are only two months left before final completion.

Yew Hedge, St. James's Park

Mr. John Tilney: asked the Minister of Works if he has yet come to a decision about the yew hedge which surrounds St. James's Park.

Mr. Eccles: Since I replied to my hon. Friend's Question on 11th March, I have received expressions of opinion in favour of removing the hedge and I have decided to start by grubbing up the hedge opposite the Horse Guards Parade. But the questions of the kind of fence to put in its place and the money to pay for this fence are still under consideration.

Mr. Tilney: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his decision will be received with great satisfaction by many people—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—who regard St. James's Park as the most lovely of all our English parks, and will he make certain that no fence is put in place of the yew hedge so that the public can have an uninterrupted view?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Is not the real trouble: What is the alternative? It is not far better to have a brushwood fence of some kind rather than iron railings which tend to isolate the park from those who seek to enjoy it and its amenities?

Mr. Eccles: The hedge does not perform the function for which it was intended, and anyone who looks at it opposite the Horse Guards Parade will see that it is a very miserable affair. I do not think that we could expect yew to grow underneath the trees. The height of the fence which must be put in its place is under consideration. I assure my hon. Friend that I am on the side of a low fence.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLAR ENERGY (RESEARCH)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research is being carried on in this country for the utilisation of the sun's rays.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is aware of the importance of this matter. At their request the Director of the National Physical Laboratory has convened a committee which is investigating the possibility of utilising solar energy. Some research on the subject has already, I understand, been undertaken by the Imperial College of Science and Technology.

Mr. E. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the few subjects upon which the Lord President of the Council made no promises at the General Election, and, as it was not contained in the Tory manifesto, why is he making promises now?

Mr. Molson: In this, as in so many other matters, the Government intend to do better than their election promises.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Catering Wages Regulations (Golf Clubs)

Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware of the hardship caused to golf clubs by the operation of the regulations under the Catering Wages Acts; and if he will exclude golf clubs from the working of the Acts.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The minimum remuneration of workers in licensed golf clubs is fixed by wage regulation orders, which give effect to proposals duly published by the Licensed Non-Residential Establishment Wages Board and submitted to me after considering any representations received. These orders can only be amended as and when fresh proposals are submitted by the Wages Board. It is not in my power to exclude licensed golf clubs from the working of the Wages Board except on a recommendation by the Catering Wages Commission.

Mr. S. S. Awbery: Are we to understand that golf clubs object to paying union rates and to giving trade union conditions to their employees?

Sir W. Monckton: As far as I know, "No, Sir."

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Can we have an assurance that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will resist any attempt by his hon. Friends to attack wages in any industry?

D. C. Thomson &amp; Co., Dundee (Dispute)

Mr. John Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the reasons which led to the dismissal of a machine room employee from the Glasgow staff of D. C. Thomson & Company, newspaper proprietors, Dundee; and what steps he is taking to deal with the trade dispute which has developed as a consequence of the dismissal.

Sir W. Monckton: As regards the first part of the Question, I am afraid I am not in possession of agreed views. The firm informs me that the man over whom the present difficulty at Glasgow arose was not dismissed but left the firm's employment. The other men involved also left their employment.
On the other hand, the union in communication to me and in public statements have declared that the man was dismissed without reason and that the other men, with the support of the union, have withdrawn their labour as a challenge to the authority of the firm in denying any workers employed by them the right to join a trade union if they choose. They have declared that there will be a full resumption of work immediately the non-union condition of labour is withdrawn.
As regards the second part of the Question, my officers have discussed with the firm in what way the Department can be of assistance in helping to resolve this dispute, but the firm do not feel that any attempt at conciliation would serve a useful purpose. My Department's services are, of course, available at all times if they can be of assistance and the firm have been so informed.

Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer one or two


further points? If the firm seeks to evade any of the conditions contained in the Notification of Vacancies Order which he imposed last November, will appropriate action be taken against it? Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that the Order will not be used solely against employed persons?

Sir W. Monckton: Might I give the second assurance at once? Certainly it is not going to be so used. With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, if cases of evasion of the conditions of the Order are brought to my notice, I shall take appropriate action.

Sir W. Smithers: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the extreme members of the T.U.C. that the T.U.C. is not Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. John Strachey: Does the Minister agree that it is an extraordinary anachronism that we should today have a firm asking its employees to sign a definite anti-trades union document, and will he express some adverse comment on such a practice at the present day?

Sir W. Monckton: The first thing I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that this anachronism, as he has described it, has been going on for some 25 years and that I cannot be responsible for all of it. I appreciate that it is a matter upon which strong views are held, but, if my Department is to help, the less I say at this stage the better.

Mr. Frederick Lee: Under the Notification of Vacancies Order, is not this firm now bound to get new employees from the employment exchange? One of the points made by the firm is that any person desiring work with it must sign a document to the effect that he will not have anything to do with trade unions. If the manager at the employment exchange informs a person that there is a vacancy at Thomson's and that person is refused the employment because he is a trade unionist, does not that constitute an offence under the Order?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there would be an offence as the matter stands at present. As to any alteration in the existing law, I should not like to make a pronouncement now.

Mr. George Isaacs: Is the Minister aware that he has been quite misled by that statement of the firm that this man left of his own accord, and that investigation would prove their statement to be inaccurate; is he further aware that all the trade unions in this matter are asking is, not for recognition, but merely that the men should be free to join a trade union if they so wish; is he further aware, so far as Mr. Thomson is concerned, of what the present Prime Minister said about this gentleman in a public speech in Dundee some time back, when he said:
He is a narrow, bitter, unreasonable being, eaten up with his own conceit, consumed with his own petty arrogance, pursued from day to day and year to year by an unreasonable bee in his bonnet
and that this gentleman, with this bee buzzing in his bonnet, will get badly stung if he continues as he is doing?

Sir W. Monckton: I am very anxious not to get into trouble about bees in bonnets in Dundee.

Mr. Thomas Cook: Is the Minister aware that, while it is true that this dispute has been going on for 25 years, there is now a very grave danger of the issue spreading to an area much wider than Dundee and Glasgow; and will he take steps to see that that does not happen?

Sir W. Monckton: I am aware of the danger of the existing situation. As I said, the less I say now the more I may be able to help at a later stage.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Youth Employment Service, Scotland

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour the cost in 1951–52, and the estimated cost for 1952–53, of the Youth Employment Service in Scotland; and in what proportion these sums are divided between the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

Sir W. Monckton: The Youth Employment Service in Scotland is administered either through the Ministry's local offices or, in certain areas, by the education authorities. The total cost of the service in Scotland was approximately £200,000


for 1951–52 and is estimated to be £180,000 for 1952–53. These figures include expenditure by the education authorities concerned of about £125,000 for 1951–52 and £114,000 for 1952–53, 75 per cent. of which is met by grants from the Ministry.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While I did not hear the actual figures, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether he is perfectly satisfied that the amount spent is really justified by results?

Sir W. Monckton: I am satisfied that this Youth Employment Service is doing good work. I cannot express a view as to the exact sum spent in this case without investigation.

Engineering Industry

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied with the rate of build-up of manpower in the sections of the engineering industry which are engaged upon the re-armament programme.

Sir W. Monckton: There is a scarcity of skilled workers in the engineering industry, and in certain areas this is retarding the intake of other workers by firms engaged on the defence programme.

Mr. Lee: Does that mean that at the present time the programme for the production of arms is seriously curtailed; and could the Minister say over what period of years he considers the re-armament programme will now have to be stretched until it is completed?

Sir W. Monckton: There is curtailment of some matters in the re-armament programme which we should all like to see dealt with more speedily. As to the period over which it will be spread, I should not like to make a prophecy.

Sunderland

Mr. Frederick Willey: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons unemployed in Sunderland at the latest convenient date.

Sir W. Monckton: Figures for 21st April will be available in a few days and I will write to the hon. Member.

Cotton Industry

Mrs. Barbara Castle: asked the Minister of Labour what part the cotton industry is expected to play in the shift

of labour from the consumer goods industries to re-armament envisaged in the Economic Survey for 1952.

Sir W. Monckton: The extent to which workers in the cotton industry will transfer to re-armament work will depend very largely on the future level of the employment in the cotton industry.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on page 37 of the Economic Survey it is stated that some 55,000 additional workers will be required for defence work by next March, a number of whom have to come from the consumer industries; and in view of his very indefinite reply, are we to take it that this Economic Survey contains no serious plan of action, or has no relationship with reality?

Sir W. Monckton: I hope that the hon. Lady will not draw any such inference. It is extraordinarily hard to say what contribution is likely to come from a particular section of the consumer goods industry until one knows more about the likely optimum strength of the workers in the industry, which I could not now say.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the Minister bear in mind that there is very considerable unemployment in the cotton industry at the moment; that in the past the country has depended, as it will in the future, upon the cotton industry for a very significant part of the export trade by which it lives; and that to transfer labour from this essential industry to a temporary re-armament programme is certainly no advantage in dealing with the long-term policy in the industry?

Sir W. Monckton: I fully appreciate the troublesome difficulties of unemployment in the area to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I am not saying that there will be an attempt to reduce the number of workers in the industry. It is only that if they become available and there is not work for them, there are here opportunities, in some cases, which they could take.

Institute of Houseworkers, Scotland

Miss Margaret Herbison: asked the Minister of Labour what effect the cut imposed on the National Institute of Houseworkers has had on its one centre in Scotland.

Sir W. Monckton: The Institute will not be in a position to retain this centre after the latest entrants amongst the present trainees finish their course in November next.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that this one centre in Scotland draws its students from the islands to the North of Scotland right to the South of Scotland, and that it will be a very great pity indeed if it is closed, since those girls who have had the training have found that it has been of great benefit to them; and will he not reconsider his decision that this one centre for the whole of Scotland should be closed?

Sir W. Monckton: I wish I could hold out hopes that there was more available for this purpose, but there has had to be economy in this service and the result is that this centre cannot be kept open.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister not aware that there is no other institution providing the same type of training and education, and that by this economy he is wiping out completely one form of education and training?

Sir W. Monckton: I greatly regret that there has to be any economy in this service. What I was anxious to do was to make sure that, though there was economy, the Institute should be able to continue to function, as it will do, so that when times are better it can expand.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Why should this institution, which is training many girls from all parts of the country and in other centres than Scotland, be chosen for economy when it is vitally necessary, in accordance with the Ministry of Labour policy, that we should have more trained people in all sorts of industries, and when these girls are fulfilling a very useful function?

Sir W. Monckton: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, when attempts are made to economise it is not only things which one would like to see economised upon that suffer the economies. I regret that it has become necessary, but it has.

Miss Jennie Lee: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this unfortunate curtailment, coming at a time when unemployment is on the increase, is really throwing away so much of the good work and the good will instituted

by the late Ernest Bevin, with help from all sides of the House, to decasualise housework, and at the same time to ensure that those ladies should have a status and a regular week's work; and will he, on the grounds of status and rising unemployment, added to other considerations, look once more at this problem?

Sir W. Monckton: I appreciate, as anyone who has held my office must appreciate, the interest which Mr. Bevin took in this work. I would add that we have been able to secure the retention of the Institute, and if opportunity comes to see it brought again to the areas in which it has functioned, I shall take it.

Macclesfield and Congleton

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour the latest unemployment figures for Macclesfield and Congleton.

Sir W. Monckton: The figures for 21st April will be available in a few days and I will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Air Commodore Harvey: In the meantime, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I did ask him whether he would send a representative from his Ministry, and try to arrange for representatives of the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade to visit this area, to see first hand the conditions, and to examine what could be done; and will he consider that again?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, I will certainly consider that again. The reason why the figures are not available at the moment is simply that 14th April was Easter Monday and it was thought better to take the count on the 21st. I shall see that the figures are available as soon as possible.

Sub-Normal Persons (Training Courses)

Mr. Richard Wood: asked the Minister of Labour what provision is made in any of his training centres for the teaching of trades to sub-normal men and women.

Sir W. Monckton: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind men and women who are mentally sub-normal. The answer is that no special provision is


made, but they are not excluded from any training course which they are capable of taking.

Mr. Wood: Would it not be possible for a man mentally sub-normal to learn at a Government training centre to follow a normal unskilled occupation so that he can give service in that way?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, Sir. That is the reason why the sub-normal people are put to work with the others in the hope that they will acquire this skill.

Super-priority Aircraft (Labour)

Mr. Maurice Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour what new means he proposes to use in order to obtain labour for super-priority aircraft; and how he will harmonise labour requirements of the super-priority programme with the requirements of the export industries.

Sir W. Monckton: Lists of undertakings engaged on aircraft production to which super-priority has been given have been circulated to the appropriate employment exchanges, who have been instructed to give special attention to their labour requirements. They have further been advised to do this with as little prejudice as possible to the needs of the export programme.

Mr. Edelman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that this new range of priorities, originally established in order to ensure the most suitable direction of raw materials, will not involve a new and possibly a limited direction of labour?

Sir W. Monckton: It will not do that. We cannot, after all, nor would we desire to, put a symbol on labour. All that we can do is to draw attention through the employment exchanges to these tasks of particular importance, but at the same time, they can only be dealt with by discretion because an individual case may turn out to be suitable not so much for super-priority as for the export trade. I cannot lay down a general rule.

Mr. John Profumo: Is the Minister aware that the allocation of super-priorities to certain sections of the aircraft industry will, in fact, perform the dual function not only of stepping up the re-armament programme but also in the field of export, where they can be of inestimable value?

Sir W. Monckton: I very much hope that will be the case.

Mr. George Wigg: Will the Minister give an assurance that the super-priority arrangements have been carefully worked out and based on sound administrative principles, and that they are not the result of a half-baked scheme of the Prime Minister which has not been worked out?

Sir W. Monckton: So far as my own Department is concerned, we have done our best to work out the scheme very carefully with the employment exchanges and other departments, and, so far as I can judge at present, I think it is working satisfactorily.

Mr. Lee: Will the Minister make quite sure that it is not a question of one section of the industry being reserved, otherwise he may be reserving people of no particular skill?

Sir W. Monckton: I follow that.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Class Z Reserve

Mr. Ian Harvey: asked the Minister of Labour on what principle he bases his decisions to recommend or not recommend remission of periods of service on the Z Reserve; and to what extent those who are judged available for Z Reserve training are likely to be available for military duties in an emergency.

Sir W. Monckton: The general principle is to avoid recalling for training those men who come within certain general categories of employment in which it is virtually certain that they would be reserved from full-time service in an emergency. Where the question would depend on the particular circumstances of the individual case at the time of the emergency, it is not possible to say at this stage that a man would be reserved at some unknown date in the future, but it is proposed to provide machinery for settling such cases nearer to the time. Meanwhile such men are not exempted from training. Accordingly some men now recalled for training may in an emergency be reserved from full-time service, but the numbers would be comparatively small.

Mr. Harvey: I appreciate the points which my right hon. and learned Friend has made, but does he not agree that the object of the scheme is to train men who will subsequently be available, and that considerable time is spent on training? Therefore, if men who will not be available on the day are called up to key positions, there is waste not only to the Services but also to the men concerned in taking them away from their normal duties?

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: asked the Minister of Labour what machinery exists for Z reservists, who dispute the certification of fitness by a medical board, to appeal to some other medical tribunal; why Mr. G. H. Schaverien, 2, Lincoln Road, Portslade, has been passed as fit contrary to the opinion of high medical authority at the Royal Sussex County Hospital: and why, when he appealed, he was resubmitted to the same board.

Sir W. Monckton: There is no provision for a formal appeal against a medical board's findings, but where an application for the review of a finding is supported by additional medical evidence, it is customary to arrange re-examination.
Having regard to the high standards maintained by medical boards, I see no reason why Mr. Schaverien, or other men who appeal, should not be re-examined by the same boards. I am, however, making inquiries into the medical aspects of this particular case and will write to my hon. and learned Friend as soon as possible. In the meantime, I have arranged with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for the cancellation of the notice requiring Mr. Schaverien to report for training on 3rd May.

Mr. Marlowe: I am grateful for the personal action taken, but does not my right hon. and learned Friend think it unsatisfactory that an appeal should go back to the same board? It is very unlikely that they are going to reverse their original decision and say that they were wrong the first time.

Sir W. Monckton: In the big cities where there are available several boards we follow the course of sending the appeals to a different board. In the case of Brighton, to which this case referred, although the board had the same chairman the other four members of it were entirely different.

Mr. Marlowe: My right hon. and learned Friend is misinformed. The president and two members were the same as on the subsequent occasion. I hope he will say that he regards that as unsatisfactory.

Sir W. Monckton: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will give me further particulars, because I did give the information which has been supplied to me, which he challenges.

Deferments

Mr. Frederick Mulley: asked the Minister of Labour under what circumstances his regulations permit deferment of National Service to be granted on the ground of industrial need in the national interest.

Sir W. Monckton: Deferment on these grounds is granted to coalminers; to agricultural workers employed on small farms whose immediate withdrawal would cause a substantial loss of food production; to agricultural stockmen whose withdrawal would cause a substantial reduction in the livestock on the farm; and to ex-apprentices in certain highly skilled occupations employed on specified re-armament projects of the highest priority.

Mr. Mulley: Will the Minister also give consideration to framing his regulations to permit deferment of key workers in the export industries, whose withdrawal means the inability of the firms to complete their export orders, in view of the fact that he stated—I think rightly—that exports should have equal priority with defence?

Sir W. Monckton: I wish that I could hold out hope of further extensions of deferment, but it is my duty to find the men who are wanted for National Service, and it is only with great difficulty that we have been able to make the very specialised exceptions to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

School Meals (Food Costs)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent the food in school meals is subsidised; and what the effect will be of the reduction in food subsidies on the total cost of the service.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Henderson Stewart): The food in school meals is subsidised to the same extent as other food. There will be some additional cost, but it is not yet possible to estimate how much this will be.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister inform the House whether the increased cost which is inevitable will be passed on in toto to the parents of the children getting meals at school at the moment?

Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Member knows, the average cost of food per meal is at present about 8d. and the maximum charge on the parents is now 7d. The balance and overhead costs of the service are met by Exchequer grant. No increase in prices to parents is proposed at present.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman says, "proposed at present." Does that mean that any increase is contemplated in the near future?

Mr. Stewart: There is no increase contemplated, but we can give no guarantee for the future.

Mr. Hamilton: No guarantee before the local elections.

Surgical Appliances and Wigs

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many abdominal belts, pairs of surgical boots, or shoes, and elastic stockings, have been supplied in each year since the inception of the National Health Service;
(2) how many wigs have been supplied under the National Health Service Act in each year since the inception of the service.

—
Abdominal Belts
Surgical Boots
Elastic Stockings
Wigs


1948 (from 5th July)
…
…
1,045
542
243
19


1949
…
…
…
…
…
12,696
6,142
1,614
991


1950
…
…
…
…
…
8,342
5,975
1,977
1,489


1951
…
…
…
…
…
8,017
7,472
2,619
1,052


1952 (to 14th March)
…
…
1,623
1,897
687
198

Deer

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many, and in what districts, of Scotland during each of the last 10 years there were prosecutions for deer poaching; in how many

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): As the reply consists of a table of figures, I propose, with permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hamilton: Can the Minister give an estimate of total saving involved if the National Health Service Bill passes all its stages, and is he aware that very soon after the local elections all his Front Bench friends will need wigs?

Commander Galbraith: Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the Minister say how many wigs? I want to know how many have still been able to keep their hair on.

Commander Galbraith: The number of wigs supplied in the first six months of the Health Service was 19. It rose in the next year to 991 and in 1950 to 1,489; in 1951 it was 1,052, and for the first three months of this year, to 14th March, 198.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say if injured miners have obtained these abdominal belts and surgical boots, essential for their rehabilitation and return to the pits?

Commander Galbraith: I think that matter was fully dealt with in a recent debate.

Following is the table:

The numbers of abdominal belts, pairs of surgical boots or shoes, elastic stockings and wigs supplied in Scotland in each year since the inception of the National Health Service are as follows:

there were convictions; how many of the accused lived in the localities where the poaching occurred; and how many of the accused were gangs or groups of persons from other places.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Government in their own Poaching of Deer Bill dealt with this very matter? Why this secrecy? Why have we to drag out the facts by Question and answer?

Year
District
Number prosecuted
Number convicted
Number Living in County


1942
Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
12
8
12


1943
Jura
…
…
…
…
…
1
1
1


1945
Mull
…
…
…
…
…
1
1
1



Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
2
—
2


1946
Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
7
7
7



Dufftown, Banffshire
…
…
1
1
1



Port Augustus
…
…
…
2
2
2



Aviemore
…
…
…
…
1
1
1


1947
Kirkhill, Inverness-shire
…
…
1
—
1



Elgin
…
…
…
…
…
2
2
2



Sutherland
…
…
…
…
5
3
5


1948
Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
4
4
3



Kilmorack, Inverness-shire
…
…
1
1
1



Lentran, Inverness-shire
…
…
2
2
2


1950
Glenmoriston, Inverness-shire
…
1
1
1



Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
11
7
2


1951
Lewis
…
…
…
…
…
4
4
—



Lochbroom, Wester Ross
…
…
2
2
2



Strachan, Kincardine
…
…
4
4
4



Glenshee, Perthshire
…
…
4
3
2



Ardgour, Argyllshire
…
…
1
1
1



Sutherland
…
…
…
…
3
3
3



Kilmallie, Inverness-shire
…
…
2
2
2



Knoydart, Inverness-shire
…
…
3
3
3



TOTAL 1942–51
…
…
78
63
61


Notes:


1. All prosecutions carried out under Section 1 of the Game (Scotland) Act, 1832, for day poaching or under Section 4 of the Game Licences, Act 1860. Night poaching in itself is not an offence.


2. Exact information is not available as to the number of accused working in gangs or groups.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland his estimate of the annual potentialities in numbers, in weight and value of the deer herds of Scotland for supplying venison as human food without unduly depleting those herds; and his estimate of the numbers at which these herds should be maintained for the purpose of human food.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I regret that I am unable to give the estimates requested in the first part of the Question. As to the second part the Scottish Committee of the Nature Conservancy have suggested that the optimum carry of deer in Scotland would be 60,000, exclusive of calves. They estimate that with efficient management this total would yield annually 800 tons of meat.

Why are the facts not published to justify the Bill, and how can he expect the House to consider the Bill unless the facts are fully reported?

Mr. Stewart: There is no secrecy at all. It is merely that the hon. and learned Member has not known where to look for the facts.

The following is the table:

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be desirable in justifying the Bill to have all these facts available, so that the problems relating to deer can be put on a rational basis—instead of leaving the deer prey to the blood lust of so-called sportsmen?

Mr. Snadden: Of course, there is a great deal of difference of opinion on this matter, but I think that when we have the Bill from another place, we shall have ample opportunity to discuss the questions raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would my hon. Friend give the hon. and learned Member the assurance that to run about the hillsides weighing deer is not really a practical proposition?

Mental Hospital Patients

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons there are in mental hospitals in Scotland at the latest convenient date.

Commander Galbraith: The total number of patients at 1st January, 1952, was 20,049.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons there are in mental hospitals in Scotland who are voluntary patients.

Commander Galbraith: The total number of voluntary patients at 1st January, 1952, was 3,257.

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are in mental hospitals in Scotland who are certified as suffering from senile decay.

Commander Galbraith: None, Sir.

Captain Duncan: In view of these statements, does my hon. and gallant Friend not think that the right policy for dealing with old people who are not certifiable is to encourage the development of old peoples' homes, rather than taking the line proposed in the Bill presented by the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann).

Mrs. Mann: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Friend?"] I should have said hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, but I have known him for 25 years, and we have always been friends; it is very difficult to look upon him otherwise. I ask that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give certificates issued for senility. In view of the large number—22,000, of whom over 40 per cent. are people over 60 years of age—is it too much to ask for an additional certificate of senility? I have certificates here. They are for lunatics, idiots, and the mentally unsound. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite can have some if they want them. There are two doctors here on this side of the House willing to be witnesses. Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be a simple matter to introduce a fourth certificate merely for senility? That is all the Bill asks for. Can we have his blessing on the Bill?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Lady is perfectly correct in saying that there is no separate certification, but I think she would not expect me to comment on a Bill she is presently going to introduce.

Lobsters (Preservation of Stocks)

Mr. J. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has further considered the objections to the order relating to the return of berried lobsters to the sea; and whether he has devised an alternative scheme for the preservation of stocks.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I have carefully reconsidered the objections to this Order, but I am satisfied that it is too early to attempt to judge its effect. The answer to the second part of the Question is accordingly in the negative.

Mr. Grimond: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the facts were well known last year, and that objection to this Order was taken by every lobster fisherman on the coast, and that alternatives were suggested which. I believe, are the practice in other countries? Will he not look at the matter again to consider a more suitable method than this?

Mr. Stewart: There were objections on the Order's introduction in May last year, but there have been no subsequent objections of any standing. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should read the book that has just been published by the Department, "Practical Hints for Lobster Fishermen," which really contains the answer to his question.

Hill Farming Improvement Schemes

Mr. John MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent any of the holdings in the three townships in Ross and Cromarty, for which schemes have been formally approved under the Hill Farming Act, are owned by the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. Snadden: The townships concerned are all in private ownership.

Mr. J. MacLeod: Could my hon. Friend give the names of the townships? Is he satisfied that these schemes are


going ahead quickly enough, and does he not think that a great deal more could be done on the township basis under the Hill Farming Act?

Mr. Snadden: As my hon. Friend knows from previous replies, it has never been the custom to make public the names of individuals who are in receipt of subsidies or grants. It would be a breach of confidence to do so. I am sorry, but I cannot give him the names. In regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, things are going on well under the Act.

Mr. MacLeod: I am not asking for the names of individuals but of these townships concerned.

Mr. Snadden: Perhaps, if my hon. Friend were to put that question down, I could give the actual names.

Hill Lands Commission

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement in regard to the progress made by the Hill Lands Commission to date.

Mr. Snadden: The Hill Lands (North of Scotland) Commission have made considerable progress in examining the problems involved in their remit, and have started to survey areas which promise well for the purpose in view. The questions to be considered are many and various, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, and while I know that the Commission are pursuing their task with vigour, I could not reasonably expect early results.

Kirkcaldy Hospital (Admissions)

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons on the waiting list for beds in Kirkcaldy General Hospital; and the total number of beds in this hospital.

Commander Galbraith: There are 1,598 persons at present on the waiting list for admission to Kirkcaldy General Hospital. This hospital has 74 beds.

Mr. Hubbard: In the light of those shocking figures—1,500 patients awaiting hospital beds in a hospital that has a total of 74 beds—will the hon. and gallant Gentleman do something—cause an

inquiry to be held, or do something—to improve the provision of beds in this particular area?

Commander Galbraith: I explained the position fully to the hon. Gentleman in reply to his Question on 5th February, 1952.

Mr. Hubbard: On that particular occasion I was told that it was impossible to give a date for the new building. It is not much good at all simply to say that at some date in the future some steps will be taken. I again ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to start an inquiry into this matter so that something be done now, and to give a date when we can expect the provision of beds in this area, which is a large mining area where there is a large incidence of accidents.

Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman take into account that the Fife area is growing at a tremendous rate with the influx of miners, and that really, from the point of view of the hospital board, it is absolutely necessary to get away from the habit of the whole population of Fife coming to Edinburgh for treatment? Would it not be an economy to have the hospital developed in Fife?

Commander Galbraith: I will bear that matter in mind.

Mr. Hubbard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of aged persons awaiting hospital beds in Kirkcaldy.

Commander Galbraith: The total number of aged persons awaiting admission to hospital beds in Kirkcaldy is 30.

Mr. Hubbard: Here again, might I ask that something should be done to deal with this matter which is causing much concern to everyone, including the hospital Board? Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that last week in a welfare home three persons awaiting hospital treatment died and might well have been saved had provision been made for them? Will he institute inquiries to see whether more provision cannot be made for chronic sick people?

Commander Galbraith: indicated assent.

Roads, North Uist

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the poor condition of the


agricultural township roads in the west of North Uist Island, and that this is detrimental to the agricultural and general development of the Island; and what urgent measures of assistance he proposes to deal with the problem.

Mr. Snadden: Under existing legislation there are no powers under which assistance can be given towards the improvement of these roads unless the work forms part of an approved scheme under the Hill Farming Act, 1946, and Livestock Rearing Act, 1951.

Mr. MacMillan: Does not the Under-Secretary think it is high time that powers were taken by the Government in order to assist people who are doing their best under very difficult circumstances to boost agricultural production and make themselves independent of food from the mainland? Cannot he move the Government—I have tried this over many years with many Governments—to provide some special form of assistance to enable these people to improve the roads?

Mr. Snadden: Fresh legislation would be required for what the hon. Gentleman asks.

Mr. John MacLeod: Could not the Minister see that more was done under the Hill Farming Act?

Mr. Grimond: Would the Minister consider introducing legislation to meet this point which has widespread application throughout the whole of the Highland area?

Mr. David J. Pryde: Is it not perfectly obvious to the hon. Gentleman's Department that this applies not only to the Highlands but also to the Lowlands?

Mr. Snadden: It is available under two different sets of legislation at the present time.

Electricity, Isles of Lewis and Harris

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the work on the Hydro-Electric Board's distribution scheme for the lochs area of the Isle of Lewis is to begin; and if he will state the reasons for the delay in bringing electricity to the Isle of Harris.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I am informed by the Board that distribution to the lochs area will begin as soon as the

supply of materials permits: and that work in Harris could only be expedited by diverting materials from other areas.

Mr. MacMillan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, in fact, the lines, poles and all the works going on on one side of the Island are only 300 yards away from the biggest lochs area village, and would it not be a double economy that while serving the west side the Board should try to attend to this other area at the same time?

Mr. Stewart: This is a matter which is now in the hands of the Board, and I will see that the hon. Gentleman's views are transferred to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Local Authority Building

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interest of competition, he will name the county councils in Scotland which have received a reduced allocation for domestic building because they have failed to build up to the limit of their previous allocation.

Commander Galbraith: A variety of circumstances determines the number of houses to be built by local authorities, and quite often the circumstances are outside the local authority's control. A statement such as my hon. Friend desires would, therefore, be misleading.

Mr. Maitland: Would it not be of advantage, despite all my hon. and gallant Friend has said, to consider the competitive instinct and the competitive pride that might be invoked if county councils were encouraged in this fashion?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir, if an equitable basis could be provided.

Burnwood Camp, Carluke (Rents)

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will inquire into a decision by the Lanarkshire County Council to charge rents for damp and ill-heated temporary huts at Burnwood Camp, Carluke, which approximate to rents charged by the county council for permanent county council houses in the same town.

Commander Galbraith: In fixing these rents the county council had regard primarily to rents charged for temporary houses in the county. The matter is one within their discretion, and my right hon. Friend has no power to interfere.

Mr. Maitland: Will my hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that one of his predecessors nobly intervened in this matter to good effect, and, furthermore, that the rents charged are 11s. 10d. a week as against 12s. 1d. locally for permanent accommodation? Will he have another look at the matter?

Commander Galbraith: As I have already stated, that is quite outside the scope of my right hon. Friend's powers.

Waiting Lists (Publication)

Mr. R. Brooman-White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider issuing a circular to local authorities in Scotland encouraging some standardisation of practice in the publication of lists showing the claimants to whom houses have been allocated and the categories, or points rating, under which the respective allocations have been made.

Commander Galbraith: A recommendation on this subject by the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee was brought to the notice of local authorities in May, 1950, and a further circular seems unnecessary.

Mr. Brooman-White: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that there appears to be considerably more satisfaction in areas where such lists are available for public inspection? Is it not important, not only that justice should be done, but that every facility should be given to the public to assure themselves that justice is being done?

Islands

Mr. M. MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses are to be built in the present year in the Islands of Barra, South Uist and Benbecula, North Uist, Harris and Lewis, respectively, for the county councils of Inverness and Ross and Cromarty; and what was the total since 1945 to 1951.

Commander Galbraith: The County Council of Ross and Cromarty expect to build 106 houses this year in Lewis. The

County Council of Inverness do not, I understand, propose to build houses in any of the other Islands this year. The number of houses built by the two authorities in the Islands between 1945 and 1951 is 286. I am circulating the detailed figures for which the hon. Member has asked in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MacMillan: Does the reply about the Inverness County Council mean that this Tory county council has not attempted to meet its obligations to provide more houses in this present year in these islands where housing is still in some places very bad indeed?

Commander Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman will remember that all the houses which were built between the years for which he is asking were Swedish timber houses, and we hope that we may be able to initiate other schemes of that kind later on.

Mr. MacMillan: Since the houses that have been built apart from the many crofter houses, were Swedish houses erected under the Labour Government's emergency import schemes, does that mean that the Inverness County Council have not built a single house in the Outer Islands of a permanent character, and that they intend to build none in the future?

Following are the detailed figures:


—
1945–51
1952


County Council of Ross:




Lewis
128
106


County Council of Inverness:




Barra
40
—


South Uist
42
—


Benbecula
14
—


North Uist
16
—


Harris
46
—



286
106

Old People (Crofting Districts)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for houses designed for old people in the crofting districts.

Commander Galbraith: The Scottish Housing Advisory Committee's Report on "The Housing of Special Groups," copies of which were sent to Scottish local authorities on 9th April, gives detailed guidance about houses for older


people and specimen plans, including plans which could be adopted in crofting districts.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied that this could be effectively adopted in crofter districts, because it is the particular difficulties of crofting to which I want to draw attention?

Commander Galbraith: Yes, Sir.

Weir Timber Houses

Mr. Brooman-White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will extend the arrangements for the construction of Weir timber houses to cover two apartment houses which may be particularly suited to the needs of elderly couples.

Commander Galbraith: The size of the programme is necessarily restricted by the limitation on timber imports, and in present circumstances I cannot hold out any hope that it will be extended.

Mr. Brooman-White: Might not special arrangements of this kind be made to meet a number of special cases which have very little chance at the present time, and if they were made would not that relieve overcrowding elsewhere? Will my hon. and gallant Friend keep the possibility in mind?

Commander Galbraith: My hon. Friend will understand that to include a proportion of houses such as he suggests at the present, even if practicable, would lead to great delay and might increase costs.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that to a great extent our housing problem in Scotland today is caused because we have too many one and two apartment houses, and that he will only aggravate the overcrowding problem if he authorises too many two apartment houses? Is he not further aware that we have only encouraged this for single or old persons in very special circumstances?

Mr. Brooman-White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the difference in cost and average time of construction between a Weir type four-apartment timber house and a traditional house of comparable size.

Commander Galbraith: It is not yet possible to make an actual comparison, but the Weir Corporation expect to be able to erect their timber house in less than half the time that would be required for a traditional house of similar size. The cost should compare favourably with that of a comparable brick house.

Mr. Brooman-White: In view of the satisfactory assurances about speed, will my hon. and gallant Friend assure us that there is no ceiling to this programme and, in respect of progress made, will he keep the possibility under review of getting additional timber and expanding the programme?

Commander Galbraith: My hon. Friend knows that the present programme is for 3,000 houses.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many standards of timber per house will be consumed in the manufacture of each of the standard houses to be produced by the Weir Housing Corporation of Coatbridge; and what is the cost per house, with and without erection costs.

Commander Galbraith: Approximately three standards a house will be needed. The basic price for the completed house is £1,472.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the price quoted to him by Scandinavian suppliers, c.i.f. to an east Scottish port, for an all-timber house identical in specification to those houses now to be manufactured by the Weir Housing Corporation of Coatbridge.

Commander Galbraith: No, Sir. To publish the quotations of competitors is undesirable and might prejudice competitive tendering.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it more economical to import the completed prefabricated house, or to import the timber for it and construct the house in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom?

Commander Galbraith: The most economical method which could be adopted is that which has been adopted.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERIAL SALARIES AND TRANSPORT

Mr. F. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if he will now recognise the increasing strain and weight of responsibility placed upon senior and junior Ministers of Her Majesty's Government; and if he will now revise his policy of economy with regard to Ministerial salaries and transport facilities.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): While expressing my acknowledgments of the kindly thought manifested by the hon. Gentleman, it is not proposed at the present time to change the arrangements made when the Government was formed.

Mr. Beswick: If the Prime Minister is thinking of the propaganda value of this gesture, might I ask him if he is aware that after giving £50 million to the doctors, £52 million to the farmers and £75 million to the bankers, the country is not impressed when he economises in this way? Might I also ask him to give special attention to transport? Is he aware that no commercial firm of any repute would keep its senior executives to one or two o'clock in the morning and expect them to be back at their work at 9.30 or 10 o'clock in the next morning without giving them every transport facility?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is in a very tender-hearted mood, but all sorts of exigencies have to be faced by the Government of the day, and one of the most surprising and unwelcomed was the decision which we owe to the late Government of producing £40 million additional to the doctors.

Mr. Profumo: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that no matter what salary was paid or transport allotted to Her Majesty's Ministers at this time, it would be quite impossible to alleviate the strain to which they are subjected in administering their offices and at the same time trying to clear up the mess and muddle left by their predecessors?

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Will the Prime Minister also have regard to the strain on hon. Members who are neither Ministers nor junior Ministers and so arrange the Government business as not to necessitate our attendance here night after night and all night as well?

The Prime Minister: I think if ever there was a question which should be discussed through the usual channels, it is this one.

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the opinion is widely held in this House and in the country that a person in receipt of an income of £4,000 a year is capable of providing himself with a motor car without any charge on public funds?

The Prime Minister: I have made certain arrangements which are being laboriously carried out, but it is easier to see these things in theory than to carry them out in practice. I propose to persevere on the exact basis which I set forth when we took office six months ago.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Anthony Marlowe: On a point of order. Has there been some change, Mr. Speaker, in the procedure for Questions? I believe it has always been the custom when a Department's Questions were interrupted at No. 45 that that Department went to the bottom of the list and the next Department took its place.

Mr. Speaker: As far as my recollection goes, when Questions to a particular Department have been interrupted by Questions to the Prime Minister, they have carried on afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT SEAMEN'S ARREST, ITALY

Mr. David Logan: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that 13 members of the White Star liner "Britannic" were arrested on 17th March at Naples and have not yet been brought to trial; and in view of the distress caused to their wives and mothers, who had been to see him, would the Secretary of State make representations to the Italian Government to take action and expedite trial of the men.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): Yes, Sir. Thirteen members of the crew of the s.s. "Britannic" were arrested at Naples on 17th March and charged with assault and injury to the police. The men were interrogated on 21st March, and Her Majesty's Consul-General immediately arranged for their defence. The Consul and Vice-Consul have visited the


prisoners on several occasions, and the lawyer engaged for the defence has also visited them. Her Majesty's Consul-General has made every effort to expedite their trial. The reason for the delay has been the slow recovery in hospital of a policeman who was seriously injured in the incident and who is the principal witness for the prosecution. Under Italian procedure, the presence in court of this witness is essential. Although the efforts of Her Majesty's Consul-General to induce the Italian authorities to waive this requirement have so far failed, I am informed that the charge has now been reduced to one of assault without injury. [Laughter.] That shows that the diplomacy has been quite effective. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Embassy at Rome were instructed on 22nd April to make representations to the Italian authorities to expedite the trial. I am taking steps to hasten the reply to these representations.

Mr. Logan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I call his attention to the fact that the mothers and wives of these men are very respectable people, whom I have seen, and that their money from the men's pay has been stopped. Would he kindly confer with the authorities in Liverpool and notify them, so that proper provision is made for the mothers and wives during the incarceration of the men?

Mr. Eden: I will certainly pass on that representation.

Captain Robert Ryder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been other cases of prolonged delay in bringing our people to trial before Italian courts? They include one of my constituents, who was in prison for more than six months before being brought to trial. Would my right hon. Friend bear that point in mind?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. There have been such cases in the past. I am taking steps to ask our consular authorities to keep me fully informed of these developments when they occur.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: While it is appreciated that the 13 men are receiving assistance from their union and the British Consul, so far as the trial is concerned, and that the incidents occurred

at a place far distant from where the men were actually arrested, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary will continue to put pressure, as far as he can, upon the Italian authorities to agree that it would be in the interests of everybody concerned if the trial took place as soon as possible?

Mr. Eden: In fairness, I ought to tell the House that from the only newspaper report—a British one—that I have been able to get, it appears that these sailors were presenting a musical entertainment in a main street with guitar and mandolin. It appears that the Italians were critical of the music; so that, in due course, 60 police arrived. Her Majesty's Consul-General is now engaged in the necessary diplomatic activities.

Mr. Logan: May I call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that the date was 17th March?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Having regard to the undue delay in bringing these men to trial, will the Foreign Secretary do his best to see that the men are admitted to bail pending trial?

Mr. Eden: We are really taking all the action we possibly can in what are rather unusual circumstances.

BECHUANALAND (BAMANGWATO CHIEFTAINSHIP)

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) obtained my permission quite recently to ask a Private Notice Question of the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Since then I have found that the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) had given notice of a Question on the same subject. I was not aware of that when I agreed to the Question. I merely mention the fact so that this shall not be taken as a precedent.

Mr. Gordon Walker: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he has any statement to make on the outcome of the discussions with the Bamangwato representatives at present in this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): My noble Friend the Secretary of State has had two meetings with the members of the Bamangwato tribe who are in this country. At the first meeting he listened to all that they had to say. He gave them the fullest facilities, and all six spoke at length. They also delivered to him a memorandum of their views. They claimed to represent the tribe and argued that the tribe as a whole strongly desired the appointment of Seretse Khama as chief and was prepared to accept his wife. They asked my noble Friend to reconsider Her Majesty's Government's decision that Seretse Khama could not be recognised as chief. They added that, if my noble Friend could not see his way to alter this decision, they would welcome a further statement of the reasons which had led Her Majesty's Government to make it.
At the second meeting my noble Friend informed them that he saw no reason for alteration of Her Majesty's Government's decision about Seretse Khama, which was firm and final. My noble Friend and his predecessor had been fully aware, before the decision was reached, of the views which they had expressed and the delegation had added nothing to the information already at their disposal. My noble Friend pointed out that opinion in the tribe had changed in the past and might do so again. He emphasised, what is so often overlooked, that at the first kgotla, in November, 1948, a large majority of the tribe showed a very strong aversion to acceptance of Seretse Khama's marriage, on the grounds that it constituted a flagrant breach of tribal custom. A division of opinion in the tribe clearly existed, which was likely to be intensified in the future over the succession.
Moreover, as had been stated in the White Paper of 1950 (Cmd. 7913), the view of the tribe, or of a majority of the tribe, was only one of the factors which Her Majesty's Government had to take into account. Under Bechuanaland law the final decision rested clearly and specifically with the Government, which would be failing in its responsibilities if it did not consider what was best in the ultimate interests of the tribe and the Protectorate. The reasons for the Government's decision about Seretse Khama were already fully set out in published

documents, namely the White Paper of 1950 (Cmd. 7913), the statement made in this House and in another place on 27th March, 1952, and speeches in the debate in another place on 31st March, of which my noble Friend gave them copies to study and to take back with them for the information of those whom they claimed to represent.
My noble Friend pointed out that their claim to represent the tribe was not unchallenged. Quite recently, for example, persons of high standing in the tribe had seen fit to petition his predecessor contesting their right to speak for the tribe. Finally, he emphasised Her Majesty's Government's determination to secure settled conditions in the Reserve, to reunite the tribe and to restore the chieftainship in the person of some other and more suitable candidate who was acceptable both to the tribe and to the Government. The sooner the tribe's co-operation over this was secured, the sooner would happiness and progress—social, economic and political—be achieved in the Reserve. My noble Friend counselled them, therefore, to abide loyally by the Government's decisions.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is not the value of this statement wholly vitiated by the way in which the Secretary of State made it clear beforehand that he regarded this meeting as a pure formality, indeed a nuisance, and that he had completely made up his mind before he met those who came over from the tribe?

Mr. Foster: I cannot accept any one of the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Clement Davies: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether or not these people represent the full views of the tribe, or is he satisfied that they represent a very large section of the views of the tribe, and are not the views of the tribe of paramount importance in a question of this kind?

Mr. Foster: I think it can be said that they represent a majority of the tribe, undoubtedly, but, as was pointed out in the debates, the views of the majority of the tribe are not the paramount reason for this decision. The Government are the trustees for this tribe and they have to do what in their opinion is best for the interests of the tribe.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister not agree that in this matter the Government are taking a narrow and, especially in view of his last answer, an undemocratic line in this matter—a line which may be prejudicial to the prestige and influence of this country not only in Bechuanaland but all over coloured Africa?

Mr. Foster: No, I do not agree.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the same principle was adopted in regard to the return of Tshekedi Khama, and does this mean that Seretse Khama, even as a private citizen, will never be allowed to go back to his native country?

Mr. Foster: It might well be said that the majority of the tribe did not want Tshekedi to go back under the terms he wanted, but we thought it was in the best interests of the tribe that he should, and I understood most right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House agreed with that decision. It is not the decision of Her Majesty's Government that Seretse Khama should be excluded for ever. When a new chief has been established, and if Seretse Khama is willing to enter into a similar undertaking to that of Tshekedi, then we will consider his returning to the Reserve.

Mr. Julian Snow: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say yet whether there is any truth in the report in "The Times" last week that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is to receive a visit from the Primate of all England on this matter?

Mr. Foster: No, I cannot.

Mr. T. Driberg: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the original difference of opinion in the tribe, on which he laid stress, is really no longer relevant since, as he himself admits, the majority now accept this marriage, especially since the visit to the tribe of Seretse Khama and his wife? Also, is he now satisfied that it is not against native law and custom for a chief of that tribe to marry without previous consultation?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir. My noble Friend regards it as extremely relevant that the first two kgotlas were decisively against the marriage of Seretse. What I understand the hon. Gentleman is arguing is that the delegation represented that there

was no tribal custom which required consultation by a chief of the tribe with regard to marriage. The statements made by the delegation were not accurate about tribal custom on that point. The only two instances they gave were the marriage of Khama III and of Tshekedi.
In the case of the marriage of Khama III it was marriage with his fourth wife, not with his principal wife, and at a time when he already had an heir. Therefore, there was no tribal custom shown by that—practically the opposite—but that when the chief wants to marry a principal wife, he has to consult the tribe. With regard to Tshekedi, the position was that he was not the chief and not first in the line of succession. So the other instance given by the delegation also did not prove the contention they made. In addition, the Administration has informed us from South Africa that there is no recorded instance of a chief, in the case of a principal wife who would give birth to an heir in due time, ever having married without consulting the tribe.

Mrs. Eirene White: As the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the delegation now in this country represents the majority of the tribe and is, therefore, not just an assemblage of private persons, will he see that it is made possible for part of their expenses at least to be defrayed out of the tribal treasury? We understand that to put the feelings of their people directly to the Secretary of State, some of the members of the delegation have had to pledge their private property. As they have come as public representatives, surely the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that they should be able to use tribal funds?

Mr. Foster: I think one could go even further than the hon. Lady. My noble Friend is prepared to consider payment of their air passages not out of tribal funds but out of United Kingdom funds.

Mr. Driberg: May I inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that we shall be arguing this matter further tomorrow night on the Adjournment?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1952–53

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Central African Federation for the year ending on 31st March, 1953, namely:


Civil Estimates, 1952–53



£


Class II., Vote 8, Colonial Office
10


Class II., Vote 5, Commonwealth Relations Office
10


Total
£20


—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Orders of the Day — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

3.48 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I want to explain at the beginning why we have thought it desirable to initiate another debate on the question of Central African Federation, notwithstanding the fact that recently we had a full day's debate upon this question and notwithstanding the fact that, whilst we are debating it, a Conference is in session in London discussing this thorny and difficult problem.
I do not propose to traverse the ground which I covered in a statement, which I am afraid was rather long, in the recent debate. I outlined fairly fully then the reasons why I thought that federation in principle was desirable, and I set out what I thought were the undoubted economic and political advantages which would derive from federation. I do not want to add to or subtract from anything I said on that aspect of the matter in the recent debate.
What I am concerned to do today is to direct attention to the position that has now been reached in the consideration of this matter, and to concentrate on what emerged from the statements made, in reply to Questions and supplementary questions, by the Minister of State last Wednesday, and upon what we gather is taking place at the Conference at this

moment, and what is likely to take place when the Conference has concluded its consideration.
The statement of the Minister last week revealed four facts to which I wish to direct attention and upon which I want to comment. We learnt officially, first, that the African representatives from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland had refused the invitation to attend the Conference; secondly, that it had been arranged that the delegates from those two Protectorates should return to their own countries while the Conference was still in session; thirdly, that it had been decided by Her Majesty's Government, by the Central African Governments and by the delegations at the Conference to proceed with the Conference in the absence of the African representatives from those two Protectorates; and fourthly, to quote the actual words used by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs in reply to a supplementary question when, speaking for Her Majesty's Government, he said:
It is our intention to proceed with the Conference and to come to some recommendations. These recommendations will then be submitted to the three territories, and we hope that the sense of the recommendations and the good will of the majority of the House will combine together to secure acceptance of them in the three territories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1952; Vol. 499, c. 408.]
I now turn to the first matter, the refusal of the delegates representing the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to attend the Conference. As I have already said, I do not want to go over what I said in the last debate, but the Colonial Secretary will remember that I expressed the fear that one of the consequences of bringing forward the Conference from July, which was the tentative date arranged last August, to April might be to induce the African representatives to change their minds, and that whereas they had last August agreed to come to the adjourned Conference, they would not come to this Conference.
However, they were invited to come here. I say at once that I personally regret their decision to absent themselves from the Conference. I did my very best last August to persuade them—let me confess that it took some persuading—to come to the Victoria Falls Conference. Eventually they came on the understanding that their presence at the Conference and their participation in it would not be taken either by myself or by His Majesty's


Government, as it was then, or by any of the other representatives as implying any acceptance of federation either in principle or in detail. We accepted that condition and they attended on that understanding.
I thought it was very desirable that they should attend, and I myself gave them a personal undertaking that their attendance at the Conference would not be interpreted either by myself or, as far as I could secure, anyone else as involving any acceptance of federation in principle or in detail. I understand that in the discussions, when they took place, it was made known to them by the Colonial Secretary that it would be possible for them to attend the present Conference, at any rate as observers, without committing themselves—

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I think it would be more convenient if I did not demur to any points that he makes while he is actually making them. I propose to leave it until later on. I hope he will not take my silence on these points as acceptance of what he says.

Mr. Griffiths: I quite understand. Perhaps it would be better if we did not interrupt each other.
I understand that it would have been possible for the representatives, on the invitation of the Secretary of State, to have attended the Conference as observers, if not as full delegates, without committing themselves to acceptance of any plan that might emerge. Perhaps the Colonial Secretary will, in the course of his reply, tell us about the discussions that he had, because it is very desirable that, while the African representatives are still in this country, we should be clear about the discussions which took place about their attendance at the Conference and the conditions which it might have been thought desirable should accompany that attendance.
I want to make one other thing clear. I have had the opportunity of meeting the representatives of the Africans and of discussing the problem in its existing context. I think this ought to be said in fairness to them for it might be interpreted that they came over here, having

accepted an invitation to attend the Conference, and then refused to attend it when they arrived. That is a possible implication, and in fairness to them the position ought to be made clear.
I questioned them about this, and I understood from them that they made it clear before they left their homes that they would be very pleased to come to London and to enter into conversations and have discussions with the Secretary of State, the Colonial Office and Her Majesty's Government about federation, and that they would be glad of the opportunity of stating their views quite fully and frankly, including their resolute opposition to federation even in principle. But they also made it clear from the beginning that they did not intend to be present at the Conference and would not accept an invitation to attend as delegates.
I gathered that one of the delegations had been authorised by those who selected them and for whom they spoke that, if they thought it was desirable, and if provision could be made for them, to attend as observers, they would attend as observers. I gathered that what happened was that they put this forward to the Secretary of State at one interview. The Secretary of State was not able to accept that offer on the day it was made, and asked for time to consider it, and the next day when he was ready to accede to that—I should like the Colonial Secretary to explain this—the Africans then refused to do so.
In this, as indeed in every other matter, when the African representatives come to any conclusion it is of the utmost importance that we should do our very best to seek to understand why they have arrived at their decision. I have, therefore, sought to gather from them why they refused the invitation to come to the Conference this time, putting forward my view that it would have been better for them and for their people if they had been there on the definite understanding which I mentioned earlier.
I think there are two reasons why they refused to attend the Conference in the end, even as observers. The first is that they are still very apprehensive lest attendance at the Conference should be taken to imply that they accept federation even in principle. They tell me, and they have told my colleagues who have met them


with me—I believe they have met representatives of all parties in the House—that all their people in both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are now resolutely opposed to federation or to even discussing federation, even in principle. Indeed, it seems to me, from the discussions that I have had with them, that they now take a much harder and firmer line than they did last August.
At that time the Nyasaland delegates were as firm as they are now, rejecting it in principle and refusing to consider it. However, the Northern Rhodesian delegates at the Victoria Falls Conference, through one of their representatives—the other two representatives concurring in the statement that was made in the presence of my right hon. Friend and myself—indicated that they would be prepared to consider federation if, prior to that stage being reached, there could be discussions in Northern Rhodesia between the Europeans, the Africans and the Government to seek to arrive at an agreed definition of partnership and a programme for implementing it; and if they could get satisfaction about a definition and a programme for its implementation, they would then be prepared to consider federation. That statement was made by them and on their behalf at the Conference at Victoria Falls, and indeed that statement is incorporated in the final communiqué issued at the end of the Conference.
Before I left Central Africa, I urged on everybody concerned to seek the earliest possible opportunity of bringing the Europeans and the Africans together in the same room to discuss the suggestion put forward on behalf of the Northern Rhodesia African delegation at the Victoria Falls Conference. It seemed to me to be an offer of very great importance. It seemed to me that it was the kind of offer which ought to have been accepted and acted upon at once. However, no action took place. I deeply regret it.
My right hon. Friend and I came back to this country and to the middle of the Election, and following the Election, there was a change of Government. During the whole of those months my right hon. Friend and I made no reference at all in public to this question of Central African federation. We were very anxious indeed about what we thought was the most hopeful thing which had

emerged from the Victoria Falls Conference, federation by consent, and that these talks should take place. I speak quite frankly when I say that I think a very grave mistake was made by whoever was responsible in not taking steps immediately to convene the Conference.
Before I conclude my remarks, I shall return to that problem of the partnership and, even more, to the question of how very essential it is that no one shall turn down any offer made by anyone to bring the two peoples together to discuss their problems in Africa. However, there it is; they refused to attend the Conference and now, apparently, they are more firm in their decision and more adamant in their rejection, and even the movement of last August, which I have indicated, has now been lost. Who knows what the loss will mean in the end—the loss of those few months, the failure to take the initiative, which I can only say I very deeply regret?
I am using my own words and am not putting words in their mouths; I am trying to interpret the reasons as they explained them to us. The second reason why they refused to attend the Conference was that they feared that Her Majesty's Government have already decided—indeed, had already decided before the Conference assembled in London—to go through with and to enforce any scheme of federation that might emerge from the Conference and to enforce it notwithstanding their unanimous opposition as a people or what they claim and state to be their unanimous opposition.
Those two reasons together strengthen their opposition. The second strengthens the first. They say, "If we go into the Conference we shall be committed if a decision is made"—as they fear it will be made and enforced. "For those reasons," they say, "because we are so definitely opposed, we think that we ought to stay outside and not be parties to it and liable to be misunderstood and perhaps be taken to have committed ourselves to it." Those are the reasons, and it is very important that we should understand them.
In the light of those reasons, I turn to the second matter, on which I asked some supplementary questions. Perhaps I showed some heat. If so, perhaps I might explain in a calmer mood why I


showed some heat—which was modified by the Minister and I am grateful to him—in asking the Africans to return home, indeed to make arrangements for them to return home, while the Conference is in session. I am going to make a suggestion and explain why I was frightened by that proposal.
I have done my best to keep in touch with events in Central Africa since my visit last August. Quite recently I took a step of which I informed the Minister and which I discussed quite fully with him. It was to do what I could with my own trade union, the National Union of Mineworkers, to establish contact, as a very important and responsible trade union, with European and African miners' trade unions. I made a request to them and they readily agreed to use their good offices and influence, as members of one of the largest mining organisations in the world, with the important sections of the miners' international trade union movement and of the International Federation of Free Trade Unions to bring the two trade unions, white and black, together to discuss their mutual problems, their relationships and, in particular, to discuss and seek to arrive at an agreement on the very difficult but very important and, it may be some day, very urgent problem of the advancement of the Africans of the Copper Belt.
The news I had was that, because they had the fear that a decision had been made to enforce federation, there were discussions, there were conferences and there were committees of action, and the whole atmosphere was one of possible industrial action and of possible action of other kinds which might lead, in present circumstances in Central Africa, to a very dangerous situation. It is in that setting that I speak, and I repeat that I was frightened of the African delegation being asked to go back, leaving the governors here, the European representatives, and to report just that in this tense moment. I have seen them and I have ventured to advise them in private, and I venture to make public what I advised them in private.
I advised them, not only as a Member of Parliament and one who was privileged to serve for a short time as Colonial Secretary, but as one miner to other miners, with some experience of industrial

relations, some experience of industrial action and some memories of strikes and lock-outs and their consequences. I urged them very strongly not to be led into taking the kind of precipitate action that has been talked about, and I told them that they would not serve their own people best nor their cause best by taking such action.
If we are to prevail upon them, as I have endeavoured to do and as I shall continue to do—and, I am sure I shall get all the support of hon. Members and of my own trade union outside—to influence them in this direction, how very important it is at the same time to make clear to them—this is relevant to some suggestions I shall make later—that they have other opportunities of expressing their view and making it known to us so that we are fully aware how they feel and what they feel when we make our decisions.
I am expressing their feeling as I understand it, for they feel, or fear—it is a combination of fear and feeling—that this is to be imposed upon them. Their feeling is this: "In the absence of adequate political opportunity of expressing our view, what else can we do except take action, even though the consequences may be disastrous?"
For all those reasons, I have formed the view that it would be bad, and it might indeed have serious consequences, if in that atmosphere they went back to Central Africa. The Minister, very kindly, arranged that the time of their departure, which had been fixed for last Friday or Saturday, should be extended so that they would have an opportunity of meeting Members of Parliament on all sides of the House and members of other organisations. I want to carry that a stage further and make another suggestion to the Secretary of State.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that he should invite the representatives of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to stay in this country until the Conference has concluded, and beyond it. They are not coming to the Conference; we discussed that. I make the suggestion that when the Conference has ended and come to its conclusions, the Secretary of State should see them, explain to them what the Conference has decided, listen to them, answer their questions and make the Conference clear to them. I believe


that would be a far wiser course than asking them to go back now and eventually learn about the Conference in the newspapers, perhaps without full explanations or full reports. I hope that the Secretary of State will make that statement today, but if not today, and if he accepts my suggestion that they should be invited to stay, that he will soon make that statement to them.
I suggest that between now and the next conference in July, which we understand will be the final conference, the Secretary of State should go to Central Africa himself. There are many reasons for that, and I will give one of some importance. There are some who hold the view that the delegations from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland now in this country do not represent their peoples, or at least that they represent only a minority. I have heard that view expressed many times. I heard it when I was occupying the Front Bench opposite and answering questions. It is said that they represent an educated minority, and, though we should not disparage educated minorities, it is said that they are only a fringe of the people; that the delegations do not represent the mass of the people, or the chiefs, or others in authority.
I speak as one who, in a crowded three weeks, endeavoured to meet all sections of the community in Central Africa, and particularly the Africans. I formed the opinion, so far as it is possible to ascertain African opinion, that these delegates, in what they said to me then and what they said at the Victoria Falls Conference, did represent African opinion. I put this to the Secretary of State because it is very important. In the development of our colonial administration, we have set up organisations and councils of Africans which are the effective source of communication between the Africans and the Administration.
We have the district councils, the provincial councils, and the Protectorate Council, representing the whole territory. Everyone knows that Whitehall administration within the Colonial territories, if I may use that phrase would be completely impossible were it not for the local government organisations which we have built up. We rely on them each one of them, the provincial council, the Protectorate Council which is presided over by the Provincial Commissioner and on the national scale by the Secretary for

Native Affairs. These are the bodies which the Secretary of State would meet if he went to Africa. We cannot use these as the normal administrative organisations of Government in the Colonies, and treat them as representative and responsible, and then reject their opinion. We cannot have it both ways.
I beg hon. Members who have been interested in these matters for longer than I have, and who are more familiar with this problem of colonial administration, to realise how important it is that we do not send out a message from the House that we regard these bodies as being so unrepresentative of African opinion that we do not regard their views as being of any merit. If we said that, we should be doing great damage to the whole structure of colonial administration.
I have formed my own conclusion which I have made known to the House and which I do not ask anybody to accept. It is very important that there should be no question at all that, before we come to a final decision, we should make every endeavour to find out whether these Africans who tell us they are opposed to federation are, or are not, speaking for their people. It would be a grave mistake for the House to make a decision on this matter on the assumption that they did not speak for their people and then find out afterwards that they did. I suggest that the Colonial Secretary should himself go to Africa, as my right hon. Friend and I did, and meet these people, and then form his own conclusions.
I do not want to discuss what will emerge from the Conference. I assume that when it is concluded a statement will be made. But from Press reports and communiqués it seems as though the plan which will emerge from this Conference will differ in some respects from the plan incorporated in the officials' report which we discussed before. We are pledged to consult them about any proposals which may emerge, and these may be new proposals, which is another reason why it is desirable that the Secretary of State should himself indicate that he wishes and proposes to go to Central Africa to hold consultations.
I do not want to say any more about the decision to proceed with the Conference in the absence of the Africans. Before saying what I wish to put before


the Colonial Secretary and the Committee, may I say that I do not expect a final answer today. I ask that it be considered. We do not propose to divide the Committee. We are putting forward these things before the Conference concludes because we think it desirable to do so, for reasons which are already apparent and which will be more apparent after my next suggestion. If in our view the reply is not the reply which we consider the circumstances merit, we can return to this again.
As I understand it, the position which has been reached at the Conference—and the Colonial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—is that they are considering a draft constitution for a federal Government and Parliament. This draft constitution will be submitted to the territories and to this House. We should make it quite clear that the final word rests with Her Majesty's Government, and with the House of Commons. Let that be understood everywhere. This cannot come into operation except on our decision as a House of Commons.
Two Protectorates are involved. I do not wish to enter into the legal argument, but obviously to some extent—I speak as a layman—federation, or any kind of constitution, even a constitution acceptable to the Africans, would affect the Protectorate status. All of us know how attached are the Africans to the Protectorate status and the agreements embodied in it. Therefore, it is clear that the final word in this matter cannot come from anywhere except from the House and by the act of this House. It is important that that should go out clearly today, because when it is realised that the House will have the last word, that will have a very steadying effect upon opinion in Central Africa.
I ask the Colonial Secretary whether it is the intention of the Government, through their representatives at the Conference and the delegations from the other territories in Central Africa, to arrive at a decision which will be binding? In other words, at the end of the Conference, when the draft constitution has been agreed, do the Government propose to bind themselves to accept that constitution?
Do the representatives of the Southern Rhodesian Government, and the representatives of the Governments and

peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, who are present at this conference, look upon the Conference in the same way; in other words, are its decisions to be binding? If they are, and if, at the end of the Conference, those who attended it are committed to what emerges from it, I think we ought to see what is going to follow. This is one of the reasons we thought we ought to have a debate today, and I want at least to put this to the Colonial Secretary. I do not ask that he should reply now, but I should like the matter to be considered and a reply given later.
I want to put this proposition to the right hon. Gentleman very carefully. Suppose that, at this Conference, all the people there bind themselves to the decisions taken. As I understand, what that will mean will be that the Southern Rhodesian delegates will take the draft constitution back to their own country, where they are committed to the holding of a plebiscite. Are they to hold the plebiscite between the end of the present Conference and the opening of the next Conference in July? Are they to hold a referendum, and, if that referendum shows a majority in favour, does that commit them to it?
In the other two territories, the matter is to go back to them. Go back to whom? To the Legislative Council, of course; but does the draft plan go back to the African representative councils, the provincial councils, or to whom will it go back?
Let me come to a still more important problem. If we are committed to it now, I can see us, I will not say drifting, but coming inevitably to a position which I think we ought to use every effort to avoid. I can see us coming to a position in which a proposal for federation and a draft constitution comes before the House and also before the people concerned in Central Africa when, as far as we can ascertain at the moment, the Africans are unanimously opposed to it.
I have already made known my views as to the advantages, from the economic as well as the political standpoint, which make it desirable to have federation, but the last thing that I want to do—and I hope it is also the last thing that any hon. Member wants to do—is to have a debate in which the central issue is not


whether federation is desirable or not, but whether it shall be imposed on the Africans.
I am expressing only my own view, but I think it is our bounden duty to avoid that, and I therefore ask the Government to consult with the other Governments and delegations at the Conference, and consider seriously whether all that should emerge from the Conference should be recommendations which do not finally hind either Her Majesty's Government or the other parties.
If there is a final binding decision at this Conference, what will be the issue to come before us? It will be either a scheme of federation which we must impose on the Africans, or the abandoment of federation altogether, both of which possibilities we should seek to avoid. Not only that, but, if we sought to impose federation on the Africans, we know perfectly well—and let us face it quite frankly—that public opinion would not support us. The churches are expressing their view about this matter, and so are others. I believe it would be a disaster if we allowed ourselves to get into that position.
Closer association is so essential for these territories that we must not bang the door on some other possible form of closer association if this one should fail. If we now put this matter up for final decision, and if, eventually, it is either turned down or becomes impossible of successful administration because of the relationships that have been created in Central Africa, we shall not only have destroyed any hope of federation now, but shall have destroyed all hope of federation for a generation or more. My view is that we ought to seek to avoid that situation.
I should like to conclude on this note. Twenty months is a very short time, and perhaps it is presumptuous to say that in 20 months one learned some things with deep conviction: but when I left the Colonial Office I left it with many things to encourage. Perhaps I might be allowed to say that I had comparatively few worries about West Africa. They will have their problems and difficulties, and they will probably make mistakes, but I have no worries about them.
What did worry me, and what I think worries the present Secretary of State, is

something which takes one form in Malaya. There, we have a country with a population of five million, two and a half million Malays, two million Chinese and half a million Indians, living like separate communities, speaking different languages and holding deeply differing religious convictions, but all living together in the same country. The problem is how to get them all together, and how to get those races and the Europeans together. Whatever may be the controversy about General Templer and his policy in Malaya, all of us, I am sure, endorse the words he used the other day about trying to get the peoples together and to understand each other.
In Kenya, last May, when I went there, I discussed this matter with the representatives of the three major communities—Europeans, Africans and Asians. They came to me to put before me their separate views about the future constitution and progress of that Colony, and they were as wide apart as the poles. On the last day before I left, I asked them all to come to see me. Again, I met the Europeans, the Asians and the Africans, and I told them that I had certain proposals to make, but that facing me was this enormous gap in their own views.
I told them, "There are two courses open to me. I can go home, consider this matter as Secretary of State with my colleagues in the Government, arrive at a decision, and impose it. I do not want to do that. I am convinced that, if I did, it would be the wrong thing to do at this stage, unless every other possibility had been exhausted. What I am prepared to do"—I told them on that last morning—"is to invite you to agree with me now that you will go back as representatives of the three major races and discuss this matter and seek to arrive at an agreement between you."
I said that with the advice, help and concurrence of the Governor, Sir Philip Mitchell, who is shortly to retire after having rendered magnificent services in colonial administration. I was told afterwards that that statement eased the tension, and that the delegations agreed to sit down together and try to work out a common solution.
It is the only way, and it is because of that experience, more than anything else,


that I have made some of the suggestions which I have put forward today. This problem of racial relationships between Africans, between black and white, is the most difficult and urgent and the most worrying problem of all the problems in colonial administration for the future of our relationships with the Colonies and the relationships of the colonial peoples with each other.
There are three alternatives which have been put forward. First, there is that of white domination, which we reject. Then there is that of black domination, and we reject that, too, because we do not want domination at all. The third alternative is partnership, and the problem for us is whether we can work out that partnership.
I close with the wisest words upon this problem which I have read for some time. They were used in a broadcast by a young negro, Peter Abrahams. I had not the privilege of listening to it. One of the things denied to Members of Parliament is the opportunity of listening very often to broadcasts. I read this in the "Listener," and I commend it to all Members who are interested in this problem. I make this quotation from the words of this young negro:
In my fight against the system of South Africa or against South African whites, since the two are interlocked at times, I may so change myself that I too become diseased by the virus I fight against.
In the struggle to be free many negroes have arrived at the position where they would counter the white bigot's race hatred with a race hatred against whites. Large numbers of negroes today counterpoise a black humanity against a white humanity.
In the kind of situation about which he used those words, all of us may become diseased by the virus we fight against. I believe that in the situation in which on the one side there are people who counterpoise a white humanity against a black humanity and others who counterpoise a black humanity against a white humanity it is our duty, which I am sure all of us want to discharge, to do everything we possibly can to avoid either of those two alternatives, and to bring the races together round a table to seek to work out common agreements and to build their countries on the basis of racial unity and eventually racial equality.
Because we believe that some of the suggestions I have made at this stage ought to be given at least consideration by the Colonial Secretary and Her Majesty's Government—I say so with respect to the representatives of the other Central African territories who are at this Conference—we have initiated this debate, and I put forward these suggestions. I say again that I fervently hope that the Colonial Secretary will assure us that at any rate these will be given consideration, for I am convinced that they all deserve to be considered and acted upon at this juncture in the consideration of this matter.

4.42 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has couched his remarks this afternoon in the least controversial manner possible, having regard to his point of view on this subject. I should like to say from this Box that during the six years we were in Opposition we tried to keep colonial matters of this kind and others out of the general turmoil of party politics, as far as possible, under the leadership of my late right hon. Friend, Mr. Oliver Stanley.
I am very anxious to try to do the same, and I shall do all I can, I hope, to secure the same end. I freely acknowledge that during the six months that I have held this office I have had much help from individual members of the party opposite in trying to carry the responsibility. I repeat that I will go a long way to try to enlist their sympathy and help in colonial matters. I must, however, be quite frank and say that in mounting this debate this afternoon the Opposition have done something during the course of the Conference which frankly I find rather embarrassing.
I do not understand exactly why the debate has been initiated. I shall endeavour to deal in the course of my remarks with a number of points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. He will forgive me for saying that one or two of them, in fact the only ones which have substance in them, could have been cleared up in five minutes by a telephone conversation or by a Parliamentary Question. I do not labour that point. The Opposition saw fit to raise this matter, and I do not think it particularly appropriate for me to criticise them for doing so, but it is embarrassing.
Time and again, in the case of debates on colonial and foreign affairs, interchanges, for instance, between the two sides of the House are, as the Committee well knows, postponed either in view of an impending conference or during its progress, or when it has concluded and its results have not been made public. It would be very unfortunate if this kind of precedent were torn up and it became the practice to initiate debates on what I think are rather unsubstantial grounds while a conference is actually sitting.
It is all the more unfortunate because, as every Member who is interested in colonial affairs knows, the present Conference being held at Lancaster House—I think this question has been asked again by the right hon. Gentleman—is not one to reach decisions. I do not know how often I have to say it before hon. Members will accept it. As it has been asked again—I do not know how many times it has previously been asked—the Committee will forgive me if I give the same answer again. It is not a conference to reach decisions but one to make a draft document upon which public opinion can be formed.
I shall try to deal with all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and not wait for further consideration of them, because they have all been considered. I do not know whether this is the point where I should turn aside to discuss the question which has been raised as to whether these discussions are binding. They are binding only to the extent that we should not expect any of the parties to the Conference to withdraw from a position they have taken up except by agreement or except as a result of hearing new opinions that come from outside. Otherwise the sands would always be shifting. If an agreement upon a particular matter is reached by the Conference, we do not expect a unilateral decision to withdraw. That does not in any way preclude discussion and second thoughts that may occur, but we should try to get this draft document into as final a form as is consistent with what I have just stated.
There is no suggestion that, whatever people say, the document will on no account be altered, but I do not want to see a Government tear up what they have said today and put forward something else. Otherwise we shall never get an

end of discussion. I hope that gives the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he wanted.
I must stress again that one of the difficulties in advancing or promulgating the cause of federation in Central Africa, to which the right hon. Gentleman has again given his powerful support, is that there has been no definite scheme. Hon. Members will have noticed in a letter in "The Times" today, signed by the members of the two African delegations, with two exceptions—I do not know why that is, I do not dilate on it—they specifically reject the possibility of safeguards being acceptable to them. These safeguards are still under discussion; they are really the central point of the whole Conference. It is of great importance to determine exactly what is to be written into the constitution by way of safeguards. That only reinforces my argument—I am not particularly criticising the letter—that it is impossible to advance the cause of federation, which most of us have at heart, without having a definite document for discussion.
For example, if the Africans now say that no safeguards given by Her Majesty's Government would satisfy them, they appear to me to be advancing into an untenable position—to be putting forward an untenable argument. If there was any validity in it, they must see no inconsistency between their faith in the protection and word of Her Majesty's Government under the present régime and their utter disbelief in it under federation.
The two arguments are mutually destructive. They are only put forward in "The Times" this morning because they have not had an opportunity of seeing what are the safeguards which we propose—in fact, they are not formed—and how they are going to be written into the constitution. Of course, these are vital to the whole question. Many things can be altered by administrative acts, but when they become enshrined in the constitution, then the safeguards become to that extent more substantial. Will what we write into the constitution give enough safeguards to the Africans? That is a matter upon which they must form their opinion, but they can only form it if there is a draft document not binding on the Government but from which the Government, in the absence of anything else, will not be expected to withdraw.
I should like at this point to reiterate what I said on 4th March, that Her Majesty's Government have not gone back in any way upon the subject of safeguards for African interests. The matter now under discussion is how they are to be carried out. It has always seemed to me to be a very simple proposition that before one agrees to support an opinion, whether African or European, in a matter of this kind, it is necessary to ask for that support over a definite scheme and not over something which admittedly is still only in embryo state.
I must give some account to the Committee before I go any further of what happened over the African representation at the Conference.

Mr. J. Griffiths: If I may interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, I gathered he said that the Government have not gone back on safeguards for African interests. I have already said that I do not want today to discuss the question of what may emerge from this Conference, and what are the proposals, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed in an editorial in "The Times" today—and there have been references in other newspapers—that there has been one change. I do not know whether he would like to comment upon that. It is that the proposal for a Minister for African interests has been dropped. I did not refer to it at all because I thought the right hon. Gentleman would be giving us a full statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: I admit that there have been mentioned at the Conference differences from the official scheme as to how the safeguards are going to be carried out, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not departed from our position that African safeguards are one of the primary matters to be discussed at this Conference. How we carry that out satisfactorily is another question which will emerge when the findings of the Conference are made known.
I want to give some account of what happened over the question of African representation at the Conference, because there have been mis-statements. I extended an invitation to the two representative bodies—the African Protectorate Council in Nyasaland and the African

Representative Council in Northern Rhodesia—to come and see me and discuss any matters concerning federation or any other matters that they might wish to discuss before the Conference. At the same time, I extended an invitation to them to stay on and attend the Conference. There is, therefore, a mistake in the letter which was signed by several Africans, members of the delegation, in "The Times" this morning. They used the phrase:
We were not invited to come to England to the Conference but for informal talks with the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
That is an inaccuracy, because they were asked to do both. The one is not conditional upon the other. I think it is worth while to clear that up. In the event, the invitation to the private talks was accepted and the invitation to the Conference was deferred for answer when they arrived.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Do I understand that in Africa, the African delegation made it clear that, while they were prepared to come here to discuss matters with the Secretary of State, they were not prepared to discuss the question of federation?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think it is true of one delegation but not the other. I see in the minutes of the African Protectorate Council that it was decided that representatives should go to London and that, if they were invited to attend the Conference, it was agreed that they should do so. I think it is true that the Northern Rhodesian delegation said they would not attend the Conference but, in spite of my advancing years, I still retain a certain sanguine disposition and no doubt put too high a store upon my powers of persuasion, if not at this Box, at least around the table. So I hoped that I should get them here. I failed, and these sanguine hopes have been dashed.

Mrs. Eirene White: Are we right in supposing that the invitation to attend the Conference was dependent upon the acceptance of the principle of federation in advance?

Mr. Lyttelton: I hope the hon. Lady will be satisfied with what I am going to say. I think it would be better if I were allowed to continue and clear up this matter. When both deputations arrived—that is, to the private conversations—


I made it clear on several occasions—and this is the point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman—that their attendance at the Conference would commit them to nothing, not even to the principle of federation. I went further; I went so far as to say that if they so wished, I would put this guarantee or undertaking in writing. I do not think that I could have done more. However, the Northern Rhodesian delegation declined to come to the Conference and the Nyasaland delegation declined to come as delegates.
A little after, they asked whether they could come as observers. I said I wanted a little time to consider that, and, after talking with the delegation, I replied the next day that we should be glad to receive them as observers. A similar invitation was also extended to the Northern Rhodesian delegation. So they both had invitations to come as observers, at the suggestion of the Nyasaland delegation.
When I said that we accepted that, the Nyasaland delegation withdrew from that position on grounds which I must say frankly seemed to me to be extremely flimsy and insufficient, namely, that the Press were not going to be present throughout the plenary session of the Conference. I only state the facts, and perhaps I had better say no more than that I consider those are unsubstantial grounds upon which to refuse an invitation to attend as observers.
I am coming on to the point, because it has some reference to one of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, whether these gentlemen should stay here until the Conference is over. It had not occurred to me until he made the suggestion that it was up to me to extend an invitation to those who had refused my invitation to come as observers, when they not only would have heard the result of the Conference but would have heard the whole of the debate taking place on these matters of safeguards and the constitution. If they now advance the wish to stay here until the Conference is over, I shall be perfectly prepared to recommend that course to the two Governors of the two Governments.
But I must also say that this puts me in some difficulty, because it is a very considerable concession from my point of view. I do not want to make it easy for people to refuse to come to the conference

as observers and then to remain here indefinitely when perhaps they will engage in propaganda, in vacuo so to speak, until the results of the Conference are known. Nevertheless, I think the course of wisdom would be, if they so wish, to recommend to the two Governors that that should be so.
There is another difficulty on this point. It is implicit in this invitation to remain that only the Secretary of State or the Colonial Office are capable of explaining the nature of the conclusions of the Conference to the African deputations. One might think that when they returned to Africa there was no Governor who could understand the matter and who was capable of explaining it. I am sure that was not the right hon. Gentleman's intention.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No.

Mr. Lyttelton: Nevertheless, it is an unsubstantial point to say that explanations are absolutely necessary and that the Governors are not perfectly competent to explain the conclusions of the Conference in all their details to the delegations. I think that has answered one of the right hon. Gentleman's points. Indeed, I think they were only three eventually. That was the point I mentioned that could have been settled in a few minutes' conversation, and I rather regret taking up the time of the Committee upon it.

Mr. Griffiths: I think we have been perfectly justified in having this discussion. What we hear now and what we will hear in the course of the debate might have been very interesting as a telephone conversation between the right hon. Gentleman and myself, but let us look at it in the context that the Africans are going back while the Conference is still going on. It is better that this should be said in public.

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not want to labour the point, but the right hon. Gentleman could have asked an ordinary Parliamentary Question or a Private Notice Question on the subject. I make this point in no nasty spirit, but, really, to raise this debate in the middle of the Conference is highly embarrassing. After listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I find nothing but minor points which could have been cleared up by a Question in the House. He may not agree


with me, but I am entitled to my point of view.
I now want to come to the matter of this visit. Am I going to Central Africa before the next conference? There is one point which, I think, will help to clarify this. It is that the right hon. Gentleman, in every phrase he used connected with this matter, kept on referring to the July conference. I have not discussed this matter with either the Governor or the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. I have had some informal conversations about it, but, in my opinion, there is no possibility of a further conference being held as early as July.
I will tell the Committee one of the reasons. The Financial Commission which has the difficult task of determining the revenue collected cannot possibly be expected to give a report of nearly a definite enough nature under a much longer time than would be involved in having a conference by July. This, perhaps, allows me to appear again in a white sheet before the Committee, because I was criticised for my proposal to have two conferences instead of one. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion divided the House on that proposal. I have never been able to understand why it is an unwise and precipitate action to have two conferences whereas it is wise to have only one.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman must be fair in what he says over my dividing the House. The reason was that in my view Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Secretary were making a very serious mistake in bringing forward the conference to April without discussing the matter with the Africans. I asked him not to hold it in April because I regarded it as a breach of the understanding at which we arrived last August. It was not merely a question of holding two conferences instead of one; the change of date was the major issue on which we divided the House.

Mr. Lyttelton: If that is the only explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has of the matter, then it appears to me to be a very flimsy and unsubstantial reason. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am entitled to my opinion, and I am not expressing it at all in an offensive manner. I am only saying that that is

my view. What is undeniable is that great harm was done by that Division which was, on the right hon. Gentleman's own submission, taken on a procedural matter. As I say, great harm was done by it, but I do not want to labour the point.
Regarding the holding of a conference in July, I believe that any of the Governments concerned or their representatives would dissent from such a suggestion. July is quite an impossible date for the holding of the next conference. My right hon. Friend and I have already been in discussion as to which of us should go to Central Africa before the next conference and when, so I think that ought to meet the right hon. Gentleman's second point. I think we have much more elbow room now, and, again, by holding the two conferences it makes such conversations and such a visit possible.
I am not sure whether I have answered all the right hon. Gentleman's points, but I think there is one on which I ought to say something more. I think the phrase he used was "other opportunities of discussion after this conference is over." The idea—and I repeat it again—is, of course, to produce a draft document upon which public opinion can be focused in the whole of the time that elapses. I cannot say for the moment how long a time will elapse between now and the next conference, but anybody is free to have a tilt at what has been said and to try to get his view incorporated in the document.
Equally, it is quite possible for those who believe in other forms of closer association to put forward their proposals. That is not up to Her Majesty's Government, because they, like their predecessors, have come to the conclusion that the federation desired is that which will best serve the interests of both populations. Therefore, it is not up to us to produce other schemes of closer association, but, as I say, there is nothing whatever to prevent anybody, as far as I know, from producing such a scheme and getting it considered.

Mr. Griffiths: What I was urging was that if at the end of this conference we find ourselves in agreement—I refer particularly to Central Africa and Rhodesia—that might close the door to other suggestions that come forward.


We agree at once that such suggestions ought, and, indeed, might, come forward, but let us not shut the door on the possibility of some other suggestion coming forward. I gather that if any suggestion is made, it will be open for consideration.

Mr. Lyttelton: That gives me the opportunity of saying that, as I see it, there is no question of any referendum before the next conference. The whole idea of this intervening period is to have a definite document from which it would be unseemly for any Government to withdraw unilaterally. That is the extent to which it is binding in the ordinary way, and there would then be a period, which I cannot specify, during which the whole matter would be open to the inquest of public opinion. There will be another conference, and after that will come the decision and referendum.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The referendum in Southern Rhodesia will come after that?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is correct. There is no question of any referendum in Southern Rhodesia until after the next conference.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Does that mean that the referendum will be in connection with definite proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government in conjunction with the other parties concerned?

Mr. Lyttelton: We can only have a referendum in Southern Rhodesia on a definite scheme. That is what may happen after the conference.

Mr. Thomas: I do not want the Minister to belittle the question I put to him. What I am trying to get at is whether it is intended that the referendum shall take the form of a final indication of those concerned on any proposals put forward by the Government, and that, as a result of such referendum, if the proposals are adopted, they will immediately be put into operation even in opposition to the views of the native population.

Mr. Lyttelton: The discussion has got to be tripartite, but the Southern Rhodesian Government are under an obligation to hold a plebiscite on this matter, and only the assent of that plebiscite is a condition precedent to the other two

territories coming in. But a plebiscite in one territory does not bind the other two territories to come in.
I do not at all take my responsibilities lightheartedly in these matters. I conceive those responsibilities as, first of all, to produce a draft comprehensive scheme upon which public opinion can fasten and to which public opinion and particular bodies, representative or otherwise, can make modifications. I have done everything I can—and I think it has been acknowledged by the Committee—to bring the two African delegations to the conference table. I make no excuse whatever for continuing the conference, because otherwise we would be giving to any dissenting opinion a veto far stronger than that ever held by Mr. Vyshinsky.
It is quite intolerable to suggest that we should not proceed with the Conference because two of the three territories were not represented by African delegates. That would go far further than a veto on a decision. It would be a veto on discussion. If I had been in disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly and had walked out of the Chamber, then under this system the Committee would have been forced to adjourn. No one would support such an intolerable situation.
I repeat that the Conference is not to make a decision; it is to make a draft document. The right hon. Gentleman criticised Her Majesty's present advisers for not taking action on partnership. They took immediate action and it was the Northern Rhodesia Africans' unwillingness to sit round the table and discuss a partnership at that time that caused the delay.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We left Victoria Falls on the 15th or 16th or some such date in September. In the course of that week, this proposal was put forward and I should like to have this clear, because it is rather important. I expressed the view to those concerned at the time that steps should be taken to convene this Conference and hold these discussions forthwith. As I understand it, no step was taken until December. My own view is that what happened during the loss of those three months was that there were still further discussions and during discussions the Africans repudiated proposals put forward at Victoria Falls by Mr.


Moffat, who was one of their chosen representatives at the Victoria Falls Conference. To allow these three months between September and December to go without initiating discussion was a great mistake.

Mr. Lyttelton: I find myself in sharp disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise for not having brought the information with me, but we may resume this controversy later. I am in sharp disagreement with the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact, but I cannot carry it further because I have not brought the facts with me. My view is that there was no delay, other than that inherent in a General Election in this country, in convening this Conference on partnership, and the delay was entirely due to the unwillingness of Northern Rhodesia Africans to take part.

Mr. Coldrick: In the event of a draft agreement being reached, are the Government considering proposals to see that that agreement is clearly understood not merely in Central Africa but in this country? On the basis of what we have seen so far, there is a great deal of misunderstanding here.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, for he not only reminds me of a point I had wished to make but has given me the opportunity of making it before I finally sit down. It was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly. The intention is that, as soon as it can be drafted, a White Paper shall be produced on this matter which will put the scheme beyond peradventure and which can be discussed at a suitable moment in the House and which will, I hope, not only do much to explain the nature of the safeguards but do much to reassure all African opinion. I am hopeful of that and I should be very grateful for any help hon. Members opposite can give in this matter, which is of vital importance to the people of Africa.
There is no future in self-government by Africans alone or in self-government by Europeans alone. The solution will lie in partnership. We both have great contributions to make and unless they are made together there is a grave possibility that Africa may sink back and lose much of the advance she has made in recent years.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I am very glad that this debate is taking place in such a calm atmosphere. I promise to try not to raise the temperature. It is very important that colonial affairs should not be the football of party political conflict in the House of Commons, and I say that for one very good reason. It seems to me that if Parliamentary democracy in this country is to survive, almost inevitably there will be a transference of political power from time to time; and if Colonial policy is to change with every transference of political power in the United Kingdom there is no hope.
Therefore, I think that if there is one thing upon which we should seek to achieve a bi-partisan policy it is this. There is no virtue in unanimity in the wrong causes, but I do not think there is so much between the parties over this matter as to warrant marching into separate Division Lobbies.
I take part in this debate as one who was the leader of the Parliamentary delegation which visited the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland last August. We talked to, and were talked at by, every shade of opinion in those territories, black, white and coloured. We talked to hundreds of Africans. Indeed, we talked and listened to anyone who wanted to make representations. After five weeks we returned to this country and proceeded to draw up a report which was subsequently printed and circulated by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I hope very much that those who feel they may need just a little more knowledge on this subject will obtain a copy of that report from the Association, because although they may not accept the conclusion arrived at there is in the report at any rate a mine of information on the subject. My colleagues and I came to the unanimous conclusion, after a good deal of thought and study, that, while everything should be done to safeguard African interests, African opposition should not be allowed to prevent federation if that were the only obstacle to federation coming to pass.
That is the view I and my colleagues arrived at; and it is the view that I, and I think they, stand by now. This is a very tricky business. We are


all called upon to make a decision which in some ways will be painful no matter which way we decide. There is no two-headed penny in this matter. Whatever decision is arrived at, somebody will be upset. I regret that, but it seems to me inevitable.
I think it would be very dangerous to try to judge this matter in isolation. There are other very important conditioning factors. In the first place, it seems clear to me personally that if federation does not come to pass, inevitably, and without too much loss of time, Southern Rhodesia will become the fifth province of the Union of South Africa. How would that help the Africans? It seems to me that present tendencies in South Africa are of a most authoritarian character. It seems that some people out there are fighting the Boer War all over again. I am not sure that they are not winning it.
But I am certain that if that development came to pass—if Southern Rhodesia became the fifth province of the Union of South Africa—it would be a very bad day for the African population. This is an aspect of the matter which should be taken into very careful consideration. Why do I think that Southern Rhodesia will become part of the Union if federation does not come to pass? First of all, I do not think there is any doubt that substantial subsidised Afrikaaner infiltration into Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia is going on at present.
I am of the opinion that if this matter were raised by way of a plebiscite in five years we might well find that it was too late. It may well be that within five years, on taking a plebiscite in Southern Rhodesia on this matter of federation, it would be revealed that it was too late and that the Afrikaaner element was, in fact, by that time in charge. Furthermore, the territories concerned cannot make the most of themselves—cannot create conditions in which advancement can be accelerated—in isolation.
It is just as illogical for these three territories to remain apart today as it would have been for England, Scotland and Wales to fail to make the United Kingdom. I think the parallel is a fair one and I think it is exact. I do not think these territories can exploit their resources in isolation. Vast capital investment is necessary in these parts. I estimate it as £350 million in the next 10 years.
Negotiations with the Portuguese Government to obtain concessions are urgently needed. The port and rail facilities at Beira are quite inadequate to the developing traffic in and out of the Rhodesias. There can be no doubt that a double line railway is wanted from Umtali to Beira. Hydro-electric schemes on the Zambesi, and the Shire barrage scheme to electrify and irrigate the rich Southern Nyasaland Province are urgent necessities. All these things want tackling and they are bigger jobs than any one of the territories can tackle in isolation.
African advancement can only come as the result of economic development. Some of the criticism of our own kith and kin, in Southern Rhodesia in particular, has caused very deep resentment. It is very important to be objective in this matter. It is very easy to become so indignant with the indignities of human existence as to be less than fair to our own people. My colleagues and I were immensely impressed by the great care that is now being taken of the African's education, health and housing. Ill-health and illiteracy are on the decline. Schools and hospitals are increasing in number.
Far from being ashamed of their stewardship our British kith and kin in the Rhodesias can hold their heads as high as the Himalayas; but the pace of this African advancement which we all want to see will inevitably depend on the pace of economic development. Let us make no mistake about that. It is, therefore, in the African interest that federation should be brought to pass at the earliest practicable moment. In the Rhodesias I talked to hundreds of Africans. I was talking to Africans last night, arguing with them and begging them to take the opportunity that these negotiations present to discuss the question of federation; but I am bound to say that our African friends appear to have brought a closed mind to London.
I think we ought to be quite fair about the extent of the representation that these gentlemen can claim. Ninety-five percent, of the Africans in these territories lack political consciousness. They lack any powers of organisation. In every way they are just about where the ancient Britons were when the Roman legions landed on the shores of Kent. They are nice people. I like them. I talked to them. We talked the same language. I


had no difficulty at all in talking to them. But the plain fact of the matter is that 95 per cent. of the Africans in these territories do not know the first thing about federation—and they care still less.
What they are concerned with is freedom from hunger, ignorance and disease, and to the extent that these federation proposals promise to accelerate the pace at which those things can be achieved I support them. I could not accept the contention that a handful of politically ambitious Africans—

Mr. Sorensen: Shame.

Mr. Evans: —representing less than 10 per cent. of the population—

Mr. Sorensen: It is a great shame.

Mr. Evans: —should have the power to veto something which I regard as being in the best interests of the vast majority of Africans in these territories.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I think this is important. My hon. Friend went to Central Africa; I went there, too. He brought back certain views; I brought back different views. We both had the opportunity of meeting members of the provincial councils and the Protectorate councils, representative chiefs and other representatives of the Africans. Who are we to say that the Africans who spoke to us did not speak for and represent their own people? They have their village councils, their village meetings, their provincial meetings. I do not want to take their word for granted, but I must say, speaking for myself—and here I am in conflict with my hon. Friend—that, having taken very great care to meet them all, as he did, and to find out the position, I came to the conclusion that I should be wrong if I did not say that, in my view, the people who spoke to me did represent African opinion and that we consulted for this purpose the African organisations which were appropriate.

Mr. Evans: I would not for one moment challenge the contention of my right hon. Friend that the Africans at present in this country represent the opinion, and give force to the opinion, of the organisations with which they are connected. But I must repeat what I said earlier—that 95 per cent. of the Africans

in these territories have no political consciousness whatever.

Mrs. White: How many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have?

Mr. Evans: I think it is important that the British and Southern Rhodesian Governments should proclaim to the world their acceptance of Rhodes' dictum, which is so well known, with the added proviso that there should be greater opportunities for all men to become civilised. I start from this assumption—that it would be foolish to believe that a handful of Europeans can hold down Africa indefinitely. I do not think they can do it, and I think it would be very wrong for them to wish to do it. The true path of wisdom, therefore, lies in evolving a federal constitution which will demonstrably provide greater opportunities and, indeed, greater responsibilities for Africans. I hope very much that all concerned with these negotiations will bear that in mind.
I want to turn to another aspect of the matter which is not generally discussed. I do not know whether, like sex and sewage, it is considered improper, but it seems to me to be very relevant to this discussion. In this country where we British have three meals a day and full employment, our ability to remain strong and free in a very dangerous world is bound up with this subject which we are discussing this afternoon. There are those who talk about casting off the tow rope which binds us to America so that we can act as a bridge between East and West.
Those gentlemen must face the logic of their own argument, because there is no alternative to all-out development of the resources of these countries of which we are speaking this afternoon, and the other parts of the Commonwealth, except permanent and abject dependence on American charity. There are in these territories practically everything which is necessary to modern life. There is gold, cotton, copper, chrome, tea—there are 24 of the world's principal minerals; and it is only by the development of these resources that the twin objectives can be gained—our own economic independence and financial self-respect and an accelerated pace of African development.
I want, therefore, to say this to my colleagues who are very anxious about


the position in which this country finds itself—a situation in which our foreign policy, our standards of life, our very employment is dependent on American policies, whims and internal pressures. That is the situation we are in. If I may give just one example, look what is happening now when we are pushing up our sales of cycles and motor cycles in the United States. There is pressure inside the U.S.A. for American tariffs to be increased. Even if they take our exports, what is the position? The demand for dollar raw materials is so great that up goes the price, and we have to deny ourselves more and more of the things which we should like at home in order to pay for an ever-diminishing amount of American raw materials. If we push up our sales we are shut out; if they accept our imports, enabling us to narrow this dollar gap, American raw material prices are forced up to such an extent that, in the end, the dollar problem is found to be insoluble.
The only way to escape from this dilemma is by a speedy and complete development of all the resources of the Commonwealth, and, in particular, of these three territories. I say to my colleagues, therefore, "Life is not easy; we very often have to make unpleasant decisions." As I said earlier, there is no double-headed penny.
I find myself in the same dilemma as did one who is well known to this House when he was writing recently about Iraq. Kingsley Martin, writing in the "New Statesman and Nation" about Iraq, said:
As for the British, they are, as always, in a dilemma. We look after our interests. We are kind, helpful, and genuinely anxious for reform, but the job cannot be done by those who are merely kind and well-intentioned and fair-minded.
What Kingsley Martin was saying really was this: that authority cannot always wait on the consent of the governed. The circumstances of the time have to be taken into account. I personally admire the political perspicacity of Mr. Kingsley Martin on this occasion. A nation can become so preoccupied with philanthropy and benevolence as to lose its capacity to determine and protect its own interests.
That was the fate of the Romans, and when the Roman Empire broke up it was not followed by something better. It was followed by something much worse—the Dark Ages. Therefore, we all have—and

I know we all recognised it—a very serious responsibility in this matter. I am just as anxious for African advancement as any Member of this House, but I have to ask myself how that advancement can best be achieved, and it is precisely because I think that the true road to African advancement is through federation that I must support it, come what may.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I happen to be the fourth member of the team which went to Africa, and I can only hope to put forward my views as well as other hon. Members have done. The leader of the delegation, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has just spoken. He and I do not agree on many things. Although we did try during five weeks to work to get some agreement on agriculture, we entirely failed; but the whole trip was compensated for by the fact that we did agree on this particular problem.
The position today is a very serious one for Africa. What we have to face is that federation must come in Africa; and the position facing us today is that the federated lands will either be part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, or go elsewhere. Federation has been the history of the world, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury said—my hon. Friend, as I like to call him. It has been the history of this country; it has been the history of the United States of America and Australia; and, after federation, prosperity came to those countries. Unless Africa has federation it cannot develop as otherwise it may.
As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury rightly said, Africa today has got the greatest mineral wealth in the world—even as great as the United States, except for oil. That vast mineral wealth is lying there awaiting development, and we have to decide who is to develop it, and who is to get the benefit of that development. The great necessity for development in Africa is a huge sum of money. I recently heard the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia say that they wanted immediately £100 million. I believe that the amount needed is probably hundreds of millions of pounds to develop that country. I am one of those


who would like to see the development in that country not only of primary industries, but of secondary industries. My opinion is that the wealth of the country should be used for the benefit of that country, and I should like to see some of our industries going out to Central Africa to proceed to manufacture the mineral wealth on the spot, so that the Africans and the Europeans in Africa should get the benefit of that development.
We have a responsibility towards the African nations. We have taken on the job of civilisation. They have gone a long way in 60 years. Some parts of Africa are, as it were, at that stage of development of a boy or girl leaving a secondary school—coming to adolescent development; and it was never more necessary than now for us to give them a hand to help them along the road. We have done great things in the world in the way of colonisation, handing over, eventually, self-government to the peoples for whom we have cared. We must not be afraid to do the same in Africa. I am firmly convinced myself that the time for federation is now.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury in saying that the so-called African opinion does not exist. As he rightly said, we travelled many thousands of miles in Africa. We met all shades of opinion. Some days we met representatives from as many as seven or eight different associations, including women's institutes—African women's societies, and so on. I claim, therefore, that everything we four members of the delegation have said has been the result of personal contacts and of what we have been able to see for ourselves. We are not speaking from theory which we have obtained from a book. We have obtained a practical knowledge from what we have actually seen.
We met many members of the African Congress in different parts of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and the opinion that we formed—certainly, the opinion I formed—was that the objections raised by the representatives we met came from the same brief; and, if I may make a guess, that brief originated in London. It is quite impossible to get the opinion of Africans.

On many occasions when we attempted to argue with them we were met with a forthright refusal to entertain the idea of federation. On one or two occasions they made the claim, "No universal suffrage, no federation." I think we are bound to admit that the objection that is being put up by the so-called representatives of the Africans is put up in the wish and the hope that eventually there will be a Gold Coast in Central Africa. I think it is only fair that we should make it plain to them that that day will never come.

Mr. Sorensen: Why not?

Mr. Baldwin: Why not? There must be no handing over of Africa back to the Dark Ages. We have taken on a responsibility, and we have a duty towards the Europeans in Africa just as much as towards the African natives.

Mr. Sorensen: The phrase the hon. Gentleman used just now was that there could be no Gold Coast in Central Africa. Does he mean by that that at no time may the inhabitants of Central Africa form a majority in the Legislature?

Mr. Baldwin: It will be many years before we get to that stage. It would not be fair to the Africans. We have a duty to the Africans. We have a duty to the Europeans who live in Africa, who have just as much right in Africa as the African natives. We are both conquering races, if it comes to that.

Mr. M. Follick: The hon. Gentleman has just said that we do not want any return to the Dark Ages. He also spoke of the Gold Coast. Does he mean by that that in the Gold Coast the self-government we have given them is putting them back into the Dark Ages?

Mr. Baldwin: Nothing of the sort. The two sets of circumstances are entirely different. What is right for the Gold Coast is entirely wrong for Central Africa.

Mr. Sorensen: Why?

Mr. Baldwin: Because the circumstances are quite different.

Mr. Sorensen: How?

Mr. I. O. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Baldwin: No, I cannot give way again, for I have only a limited time.
What we have to do in Africa today is to teach the African native how to work, to give him some ambition, and let him help himself. By doing that we shall bring him along the road along which we want him tocome. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the former Colonial Secretary, said that three courses were open in Africa—white domination, black domination, or partnership; and he rightly said that no one in this House or in Africa wants either of the first two.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I did not say in Africa. Unfortunately, there are people in Africa who want white domination. I said no one in this House.

Mr. Baldwin: Well, the right hon. Gentleman said there were three courses open—black domination, white domination and partnership, and that we wanted partnership. Southern Rhodesia has been criticised in this House on many occasions for her attitude towards the Africans. I want, therefore, to quote from an article written by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, that very point. This is what he said in his article in the "Sunday Times":
An exact definition of partnership is difficult if not dangerous, but at least it can be said that it is based on the total rejection of racial domination or suppression by either black or white inhabitants of this country. It is sincerely accepted that both races are indispensable to one another and that each must by its conduct individually and collectively earn the confidence and good will of the other.
That is a statement of fact by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, which is accepted by the overwhelming majority of Europeans living in Southern Rhodesia. I protest at the statements being made in this House, and at a statement made by an African doctor living in London, who has not been to, or lived in, Africa for some 15 years, whom I heard say at a lecture that the Europeans in Africa wanted to keep the African as a hewer of wood and drawer of water.

Mr. Sorensen: It is true.

Mr. Baldwin: The hon. Gentleman should go to Southern Rhodesia with an open mind and see for himself what we have seen. If the Southern Rhodesians want to keep the African as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water, why are they spending the money they are spending on education, hospitals, and so on?

Mr. Sorensen: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that in Southern Rhodesia no unions are allowed? Is not that an indication that at the present time many Southern Rhodesians want the African to remain a hewer of wood and a drawer of water?

Mr. Baldwin: That is completely untrue. If Southern Rhodesia is such a terrible place, why do the inhabitants of Nyasaland go there to earn their livelihood?

Dr. H. Morgan: They cannot do anything else.

Mr. Baldwin: The condition of the African in Southern Rhodesia is a pattern for the races of Africa. There is only one difference between what Southern Rhodesia believes in and what the other parts of Africa believe in, and that is that there should be economic advance for the African before political advance. What is wrong is that we are teaching the African politics before we have taught him economics.
I have seen in Southern Rhodesia hospitals which are capable of comparison with any hospital in this country, with devoted white men and women waiting on and serving the African to the best of their ability. I have seen technical training schools, and been in our African reserves where white officers are giving the Africans technical training and teaching them how to manage their land. I went to the Sabi Valley where hundreds of Africans get the benefit of a great scheme for the irrigation of their land. That is a great scheme for the African farmers.
Those are the things that are happening in Southern Rhodesia, and it is completely wrong, on the evidence of what can be seen in Southern Rhodesia, to say that the Southern Rhodesians do not wish well by their Africans. They realise, as most of the people in the other parts of Africa realise, that the one is completely dependent upon the other, and that it is only by working together in good will that Africa can survive.
Another reason why we should develop Central Africa is from a defensive point of view. I want to see not only our textile industries going there but some of our armaments industries going there and developing on the spot,


as far as possible away from the atom bomb. Incidentally, I should like to see an East-West railway. That would help a great deal if ever the time came when we were denied use of the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal.
I beg those in this country who claim to represent the Africans, and also the Africans themselves, seriously to consider the position today and not to stand aside from the Conference on federation. I beg them to go to this Conference and to try to help to make the eventual result a good one. We are all prepared to endorse any safeguard necessary for the African. All we want to see is that he gets a square deal, and we will give him all the support we can. If we do not give confidence to the Europeans in Africa to develop the mineral wealth of that country the result will be that that mineral wealth will be exploited and used, the land handed back to the Africans, and the country will again become "Dark Africa."
That is what faces Africa unless we use this opportunity to bring about federation. I know enough of the European in Africa to say that he can manage his own affairs a great deal better than we can manage ours, and the time has come when we should give him the opportunity of doing so, not only in Central Africa but in East Africa as well.

5.46 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: The Secretary of State thought that it was rather embarrassing to have a debate while the Conference was in progress. I suggest that those of us who have listened to the debate so far will feel that it must be useful for those who are taking part in the Conference to have some impression of the way in which their affairs are discussed in the House, because, as my right hon. Friend emphasised, the ultimate decision rests with the House.
We have at least elicited some useful information this afternoon. In particular, I think the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that it will take a great deal longer than from now until July to settle the thorny problem of federation. Many of us on this side of the House feel that it may take a very long time before reaching the point of

actual political federation of these territories.
We can all see the advantages which would accrue from a united Central African territory. We can see the economic and technical advantages, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). A number of those advantages could, nevertheless, be attained by concerted action without necessarily full political integration. For example, what is there to prevent concerted action in the field of transport development? It has already been done to some extent. We have an item in the Estimates this year for the Rhodesian Railways—a joint enterprise. It can also be done for hydroelectric development.
Various large-scale developments can perfectly well be carried out by concerted action without necessarily having full political integration. The only serious disadvantage I can see on the economic side is that it is undoubtedly more difficult to raise capital on the money market for a smaller territory than it might be for a larger, and possibly better balanced, territory. But that is surely something which can be overcome by action of Her Majesty's Government in this country, as is being done for the railways and for large enterprises of public importance in this area.
On the political side, clearly it would be advantageous to have a stable united territory in Central Africa—possibly even at some time the idea of Capricornia, though I think it is far distant; that is something which must be reached slowly and carefully. It has been suggested that if we do not federate at once Southern Rhodesia will immediately fall into the lap of the Union. I should have said that in Southern Rhodesia, as at present constituted and populated, that would be unlikely at a moment when Natal is discussing secession.
For the future, I agree that if there is a considerable deliberate Afrikaaner invasion of the Rhodesias, possibly subsidised, it might create a very serious political situation. I cannot see why, if this is to be prevented, it cannot be done by the two Rhodesias, acting again possibly in a concerted manner, to take steps against such immigration. It is not unknown for steps to be taken in different countries in the Commonwealth to


regulate the entry of other members of the Commonwealth, and it seems to me that could be done in this case.
We have had a good deal of discussion as to the true state of African opinion, and also as to whether the delegations or representatives who are over here at the present time properly represent what might be called the majority opinion in the territories concerned. Doubts have been expressed upon that. I would like to put against the opinion of two of my colleagues who have spoken on the basis of a fairly brief visit there last summer, the opinion published in the "Scotsman" last week, on 22nd April, in a letter from the Rev. Andrew B. Doig, a member of the Legislative Council of Nyasaland and the Secretary of the Blantyre Mission Council, which is a Mission of the Church of Scotland, in which he says that in Nyasaland the Africans are absolutely united:
Any attempt to suggest that only a few hotheads are stirring up all the trouble or that African opinion is divided, or that they say 'No' without understanding is sheer folly. I listened to the debate of the African Protectorate Council here, and was impressed by the speeches of the chiefs, commoners and so-called intelligentsia which all added up to the same opposition. I have walked in villages remote from towns and spoken to anyone I happened to meet, and found the same unhesitating opposition expressed in their own way.
I would also remind hon. Members of an article in "The Times"—I think it was on 8th October, which was rather a busy period for most of us as we were just beginning our Election campaign—in which the special correspondent of "The Times" gave an interesting account of the steps taken to obtain a fair account of African opinion. Those of us who have had the opportunity of meeting the Africans who are over here at the present time feel, I should say quite certainly and emphatically, that so far as Nyasaland is concerned there has been very full discussion indeed. The impression I personally have of Northern Rhodesia is not perhaps so complete, hut, nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend has said, persons are here who come from representative organisations. If they are not fully representative, whose fault is it that we have not built up adequate representative organisations by this time?
It has been said by African writers in "The Times" today that they do not believe that any safeguards which would

satisfy them can be written into any proposed scheme. I think that if one tries to put oneself in the position of an African in these territories, one can see what they mean. They have all seen what has happened to previous constitutional safeguards. There is a perfect practical example at present in the Union of South Africa. Therefore, can they be expected to have much confidence in written guarantees? I believe that is the crucial difficulty at the moment in dealing with African opinion.
We have had some discussion on partnership and as to the discussions which may have taken place on partnership. If I may say so with respect, I think that my right hon. Friend was not quite correct in the suggestion that he made that action had been taken several months ago in Northern Rhodesia on this question of partnership. I understand that it was early in November that the Legislative Council were asked to consider this matter, and that a week previously there had been some repudiation of Mr. Moffat's suggestions at the Victoria Falls Conference that partnership was acceptable in some shape or form.
I would remind the Committee that the damage had been done before that. It was done, I would suggest, by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia within a fortnight of the ending of the Victoria Falls Conference, because it was on 5th October at Umtali that Sir Godfrey Huggins made a speech which, I think, shocked many people in this House. In that speech not only did he make the most insulting and derogatory remarks about my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, but also about the Africans who had attended the Conference.
The difficulty is surely that the Africans are without faith in a written guarantee because they have seen what has happened to previous written guarantees—guaranteed just as much by this House as any which may be written into any federal constitution. They have that on the one hand, and, on the other hand, having had talks of partnership, they have then had to face the kind of remarks which were made in Southern Rhodesia within a few days of the ending of that Conference by very responsible people, including the Prime Minister of Southern


Rhodesia, in which he talked about the Victoria Falls Conference having been no more than a mothers' meeting and things like that. There are less responsible people who have made even more insulting remarks.
Someone in Southern Rhodesia sent me a periodical published there regularly, in which it was suggested that for the Southern Rhodesian delegates at Victoria Falls to be photographed with the African delegates from the other territories was an insult to Southern Rhodesia. When one hears that kind of remark being made in public, it is very difficult to persuade Africans that partnership in any sense that would satisfy them is a reality in the minds of the people who sat at the conference table.
We all know that Sir Stewart Gore-Browne, in the "Manchester Guardian," drew attention to the fact that at the Victoria Falls Conference, European civil servants refused to sleep under the same roof as the African delegates to that Conference. What is the use of quoting Cecil Rhodes and talking about the rights of civilised man when we have, not just any African, but the chosen leaders of Africans, people of some education, scoffed at, and when we have Europeans refusing to sleep under the same roof as those persons? How can we expect them to believe what we say when we talk about partnership? So we have, it seems to me, a very difficult situation in which to convince Africans that there is a genuine desire for partnership in any sense of the word which would satisfy them.
I believe that it will be extraordinarily difficult to obtain federation in its full sense, whatever one may be able to do in the way of concerted action or closer association in the meantime, until one can show in the territories concerned not merely a written clause in a constitution but can give to the Africans concerned sufficient standing politically for them to feel they will be in a position to defend their own interests.
What is the present situation? In Northern Rhodesia we have on the Legislative Council two Africans and two Europeans, representing African interests. On the Executive Council we have no Africans at all. I would say, in passing,

that I met the two African members of the Legislative Council who pointed out how extremely difficult it was for them with a constituency of nearly one million Africans each to be able to give guidance to their people on these complicated matters. Most of us have as much as we can do with some 50,000 constituents.
It is to me perfectly clear that unless one can give, not just promises in the future, not just pie in the sky, but quite emphatic political advance in the shape of increased representation of Africans on political institutions, so that they feel that they would have some power to defend themselves, we will not obtain their consent to political federation.
If it is said that those who are over here are politically ambitious or are political adventurers, as it was implied, I would quote again from "The Times," in which "The Times" correspondent said:
Unless it is proposed to maintain a paternal system of Government ad infinitum, the only means of ensuring that the African masses are not run away with by a handful of demagogues is to see that political thought, activity and responsibility are spread outward and downwards as quickly and as effectively ….
as possible. There is the key to the solution.
I do not believe that we will get African consent to widespread measures unless the Africans feel that they are themselves in a position to have an effective voice in what transpires subsequently. If we were in their position, we would feel very much the same. It seems that we serve no useful purpose by hiding these feelings from ourselves. On the other hand, I say to our African friends, one hopes that they will use intelligence, good sense and moderation and will not allow themselves to be swayed by very natural emotions and prejudices.
In one of our discussions in the last few days, a most illuminating remark was made by one of the African delegates, in which he said that it was difficult for him to distinguish between shades of white. If that is so, it is very unfortunate that after all our good intentions, those of us who hold what we might call briefly the British point of view, have not sufficiently impressed the difference between ourselves and those who hold what we consider to be very different points of view.
I suggest to our African friends that there are, in fact, different shades of white and that it behoves them to try as far as possible to distinguish between them and to work as far as they can with those Europeans who truly have their interests at heart.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: Did the African delegate say "white" or "pink"?

Mrs. White: He may have been thinking of pink, but "white" is what he said.
I am aware that the Africans themselves will not reach the standard of living which we hope for them, and which they hope for themselves, without considerable European help, and they must recognise this. I am equally certain, however, that European economic development is not possible without the friendly co-operation of the Africans, otherwise we might arrive at a period of industrial strife which might be disastrous to both races. For those reasons, I trust that we shall continue the discussions, which are valuable, but that we shall not do anything too precipitate which would lead to the kind of political strife that all of us would deplore.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Thomas Hubbard): Mr. Clement Davies.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: The most interesting—

Mr. Dodds-Parker: On a point of order. Is it in order for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to walk in towards the end of a debate, not having listened to any of the earlier speeches, and to claim his right as a Privy Councillor to speak?

Mr. Clement Davies: I was about to apologise to the House. I remained here as long as I could for the earlier part, but another public duty which I had to perform, and which could not possibly be postponed, kept me away until I got back. I have devoted as much attention as I could to these matters, as the hon. Member knows, and I think, therefore, it is right that if I am fortunate enough in catching your eye, Mr. Hubbard. I should take advantage of that opportunity.
The most interesting part of the debate that I heard was the early part of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly the Secretary of State, that he was at the outset—and, think, he is today—in favour of a federation of the three territories: that he thinks it would be of advantage to that area and to its peoples but that he recognises that that federation cannot, and should not, be carried out unless it is with the assent of the Africans.
That explains what, to my mind, has been the approach to this matter and that it has been a wrong approach and if it had not been approached in that way, I do not think we should be face to face with the difficulties that confront us today. What has happened? For something like about 25 years this idea of federation or amalgamation has been mooted. Although in 1938 a Royal Commission under Lord Bledisloe considered this very matter, they came to the conclusion that it was inopportune and ought not to be followed at that time and there the matter seems to have dropped.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: Did not the Royal Commission direct their attention to a very different subject—the amalgamation of the three territories—and is it not true that in the Report the question of federation was hardly discussed?

Mr. Davies: They were considering how best the three areas could be worked together. I agree that the question uppermost in their minds was that of amalgamation. Again, it was considered by the next Commission, who thought that amalgamation was wrong but that federation was right. But even in 1938, it was made perfectly clear that the Africans were against bringing these areas together, whether by amalgamation or by anything else. The matter was dropped, apparently, after that Commission had reported.

Mr. Alport: There was a war.

Mr. Davies: Maybe it was because of the war, but it was dropped. It was only revived again in 1950, and by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia—the White Paper says so. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) to mutter, but that is exactly—

Mr. Alport: It was revived by the Leader of the unofficial leader in Northern Rhodesia, Mr. Roy Welensky. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should treat the House to accurate facts.

Mr. Davies: If I am inaccurate, it is only because that it what the White Paper says. The White Paper has made it clear—the right hon. Gentleman cited it in his statement to the House—that this matter was raised by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. If there has been any misleading, it was the right hon. Gentleman who misled the House when making his statement, but I prefer his words to those of the hon. Member.

Mr. Alport: May I say that the original conference at Victoria Falls of unofficial members was, I am quite certain, started as a result of the initiative taken by Mr. Welensky?

Mr. J. Griffiths: The fact is that since 1945 there has been a form of association between the three territories through the Central African Council for Economic Co-ordination. It was during the discussions of the future of that Council that the proposal came, and it came from Sir Godfrey Huggins.

Mr. Davies: If the hon. Member for Colchester troubles to read Command Paper No. 8233, which is the report made by the officials of these areas, he will see that it begins with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, as follows:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have, after careful consideration, formed the conclusion that it is desirable that there should be a fresh examination of the problem, and they have accepted the suggestion of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that a Conference of officials of the three Central African Governments, of the Central African Council and the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office shall be held in London for this purpose.
It was, therefore, upon the suggestion or initiative of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that the Conference took place. Also, it is to be noted, it was to be a conference of the officials in those areas and the officials of the Colonial Office, meeting here in London. I emphasise that because the suggestion was not that the Africans should be consulted or brought in, but that this should be limited to very high-minded men who were on the spot and engaged in this office.
They then made this very able report and they came to the conclusion that

federation was the best thing for it, although they admitted that the Africans were against federation. They also set out the advantages that would be derived from this scheme. I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), that the chances are that when boundaries are extended it is to the economic advantage of the territory because trade would be moving freely within the territories which would be assisting one another and there would not be that interference with trade which boundaries create. It may very well be that it was that point which influenced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and his colleagues in favour of this scheme.
Then what did they do? They said that they would hold the matter back until they had an opportunity of going out to Africa and consulting with the Africans. This Conference was to be of an exploratory nature. The decision was to be come to later. I think it would have been better if the then Government had never published that report and if they had regarded it as a report for their guidance. They could then have gone to the Africans and have said, "What do you think is the right thing to do?" Instead, they said, "This is what has been suggested and it is federation. We are now going to hold a conference at Victoria Falls to consider what your attitude is and we would like you to be present and take part in it."
They formed too much of an optimistic view of their powers of persuasion over the Africans. The moment they arrived the Africans said, "We are against federation." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly has told us that he did his very best to persuade them to attend and that they required a good deal of persuasion. It is rather interesting to note that in Nyasaland they made up their minds that they would not attend but, ultimately, two of them did and got into trouble for so doing, although they made it perfectly clear that they were against federation in any kind of form.
The whole of Northern Rhodesia was of the same mind, so we can see that African opinion has not wavered in the slightest degree. Why? Because there is a genuine fear that the Africans' position will be worsened under federation than is the case now. That fear cannot


be brushed on one side. It is general and the Africans have expressed that view since the Commission of 1938 made their inquiries and that they have not wavered in their opinion.
There is this point of substance which has to be considered. Southern Rhodesia is very nearly a fully self-governing Dominion and, therefore, it has expressed its view. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are both Protectorates. They have both put themselves under the protection of this country and of the Throne and this country promised that they would act as trustees for them. The African people have implicit faith that we will carry out that promise. How can we, therefore, suggest that we are entitled under that trust to hand over their destinies to something outside that trust and which was not considered at the time the trust was taken up? As I have already said, there is a real point in that.
Let me turn to whether there is real ground for this fear. It is genuine and it is there, and I should have thought that the Government could have no doubt about it. Let us look at Southern Rhodesia, almost a self-governing Dominion. What have we got there? There are 129,000 Europeans and they form the Legislative Council. They have a full franchise, but for the two million Africans the franchise is limited to those who can show that they have an annual income of £250 a year. We are back again on the old property classification rather than the personal classification; what we have abolished in this country, the property qualification, is more important there.
What has happened? On 31st December, 1950, according to the White Paper from which I get all these figures, only 420 Africans out of the two million had shown themselves entitled to the vote. That, to start with, gives one food for thought. The Africans and the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia are segregated into different areas of land. No less than 48 million acres are reserved for the Europeans or for 129,000 people, but there are only 37 million acres reserved for the two million Africans.
Let any of us put ourselves in the position of the Africans today. Do we think that they are being fairly treated? Is that the idea of partnership when we get 129,000 people in possession of 48

million acres, while only 37 million acres are reserved for the indigenous people who number over two million? If any of us were faced with such a situation as that, would we agree to enter into a partnership based on such proposals without a protest and without any fear?
Let us look at another aspect of the matter. No African in Southern Rhodesia may own any land near a town or even then remain there unless he is a servant of a European. No skilled work may be done by an African in an urban area. They say we are educating them.

Mr. Sorensen: They are to be hewers of wood and drawers of water only.

Mr. Davies: Not even that, for the hewing of wood and the drawing of water require skill. They are not to be raised to the standard where they can improve themselves. So a distinction is drawn between the two peoples. A European can rise to any height, but not the African. We solemnly signed the Charter of Human Rights, binding on successive Governments, saying that these people are all equal. But what is happening within their own country? The African has to have a pass. A European—no.
Let us look now at the other territories. In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, though there is separation of races, no law establishes or recognises it. In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland there is the difference in approach which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). He had the idea that the method of approach in Southern Rhodesia was the right one because it was right to teach economics first and politics afterwards. Would this House of Commons ever have come into existence if that principle had been applied to us? How many of us studied economics before we knew a great deal about politics? That applies even more to hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches.
In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the Africans are under the guidance of the men whom we have sent out and whom the Africans trust, the Civil Service. We are told that the right thing to do is for us to give the Africans responsibility as soon as possible. These territories trust them and allow them to run their own courts and local administration,


even in regard to taxation and matters of that kind. They will learn and we shall see that they will be able to take their part in the bigger legislative functions. Not a single African is now in the Legislative Council in Southern Rhodesia. What is more, we have been told that it will take at least 25 years before one of them will reach the Legislative Council. In Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland they are nominated, but the names from the African Protectorate Council are put to the Governor.
I have already mentioned the difficulty in regard to the courts. In Southern Rhodesia, civil matters only are considered by Africans. In the two Northern Territories extensive powers in civil and criminal matters have been conceded. In Southern Rhodesia a trade union cannot be registered, while in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland African trade unions are legally recognised. In Nyasaland, there is no colour bar of any description and no pass laws.
I have said enough, without going through any more details, to show what is confronting Africans in the two Northern Territories when they look at what has already happened in Southern Rhodesia. Is it surprising that they say: "We are afraid about what will happen. There are six million of us and only some 170,000 Europeans, but all the power is being exercised by them. Our position causes us alarm when we look at what has happened in Southern Rhodesia and in South Africa."
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) very rightly pointed out that while we shall put these protective clauses into the new constitution, similar protected clauses, called "entrenched clauses" from which there was no retreat, were put in South Africa. What attention is being paid to them today? If a court decides that the entrenched clauses cannot be done away with except by a majority of both Houses and a two-thirds majority, the Government say: "We do not mind that. We shall create a court that will find that what we do is legal. If they will not do it, we shall"—

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): This matter is of such importance that it ought

to be dealt with immediately. There is no question here of a procedure similar to the South Africa Act. In the proposed federation, certain powers will not be transferred at all to the Federal Council, but will remain a territorial responsibility. They could not be transferred without an alteration of the instrument creating the constitution, a wholly different situation. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) nodding in agreement with me.

Mr. Davies: I am glad to hear it. It means that the power is reserved here. Ordinarily, when we set up a new constitution we do exactly what was done in regard to South Africa. We can see what has happened in one part of the area which is supposed to come within the federation. I have only one or two more things to say.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Dr. Morgan: They are insulting you.

Mr. Davies: That does not surprise me in the slightest degree. Hon. Members opposite have always been against free speech. We have had to fight for that.
There is a document which has been sent out and which would increase our fears in regard to these matters. It is sent by a body calling itself the "White Rhodesia Council," from Southern Rhodesia. I do not know who these people are. It is signed by a man called Charles Olley, as "President of the White Rhodesia Council." In this document is a phrase which shows the attitude of mind which makes Africans afraid. This is the phrase:
It is respectfully submitted that the policy of the Colonial Office has virtually ruined Northern Rhodesia in relation to the black proletariat. So much so, in fact, that the natives are well out of hand and arrogant to a degree.
I suppose arrogance is a monopoly which would be kept by these white men who are settlers out there.
What do the Government propose to do? They are going on with this Conference, which will arrive at certain decisions. I have already heard an hon. Member saying what they propose to do and propose to reserve. Having done that, what do they intend to do? Whether the Africans agree or not, are the Government going to force this upon them?


If they do, the Government will be causing disaster not only in this part of Africa but elsewhere. It is absolutely impossible, when there is knowledge of the Charter of Human Rights and when these people are in the same position and have the same dignity, to force something upon them against their will. If this is being done, or is even proposed, I shall fight it as hard as I possibly can.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am delighted to have a few minutes in which to speak at the end of this debate since, as some hon. Members know, I have lived in these territories. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has used up so much of the available time for free speech, which he complained our side does not support, that I am not bothering on this occasion to take up many of his remarks, although I should be delighted to take up the controversy on another occasion. There was however one misleading thing which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and which I mentioned when last I spoke on Central Africa. It is about the number of native Africans who are entitled to vote in Southern Rhodesia.
I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman checks up this point, because the dissemination of the isolated figure 420 is misleading. There is a property qualification in that country. I do not deny it; but it is by no means limited to that country. As a matter of fact, from memory, there are about 5,000 native Africans or so who are entitled to vote in Southern Rhodesia. The figure 420 is only of those who have bothered to go and register, although the others are entitled to do so. Before the recent property qualification was altered, when the value of money was lowered after the war, the original figure was about 8,000. However, there was a reservation put in the Act which raised the property qualification, a clause to prevent retrospective effect, operating against those already entitled to vote; but of these only a fraction bothered to register and take advantage of it.

Mr. C. Davies: rose—

Mr. Bennett: I am sorry, I cannot give way in view of the limited time before

my right hon. Friend replies. I have only two other brief points. The first concerns the application of the epithet "stooges" to two African representatives of Southern Rhodesia. It would be a pity if the debate terminated without a formal rebuttal of that. It is ridiculous that because two native Africans have the intelligence and goodwill to come to a conference and put their point of view without being bound to the conception of federation, they should be called stooges. If they are stooges, so are all the other native Africans who went to the Victoria Falls Conference, because they went there on exactly the same terms.
My second point concerns representation. The Press and certain speeches—not so many in this House this afternoon fortunately—have given the impression that the governors who have come here, the official representatives from the two Northern territories, are representatives only of the settlers. I have seen the phrase in a well-known national newspaper that only representatives of settlers are here. That is nonsense, because governors are as much representative of the native interests as of the settler interests.
Finally, I have no wish deliberately to be controversial, but I must again say how clearly events have shown the Division at the end of the previous debate to have been misguided. There is no doubt that native opinion has been hardened largely because of that misguided Division.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the hon. Member allow me—

Mr. Bennett: No, I will not. I have not interrupted one hon. Member and I will not give way now. That is my opinion. I say it did great harm. There is no better way of hardening African opinion against federation on the one hand and of giving assistance to those extremist minorities amongst the whites out there than by letting party politics come in and having Divisions on the most flimsy reasons. The same applies to ill-informed criticism here of the motives and actions of our kith and kin in Africa. On the one hand, African opinion is hardened and, on the other, any extremist European minority is encouraged in its outlook.

6.33 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. F. M. Bennett), has just said in the inevitably tragically brief speech he has made. We are all glad that there is to be no Division this evening. This has been a sensible and moderate debate. I hope he will forgive me, but I must exclude from that tribute part of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). Had he been able to spend longer here this afternoon he might have come to different conclusions based on some of the advice given from both sides of the Committee.
I am particularly sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt it necessary to give to the wide public that follow this debate extracts from some silly documents he had received from Rhodesia, without even trying to inquire, either from the Colonial Office or the Dominions Office or anywhere else, about the qualifications and the right to speak in that language of the people who composed that document. A more wholly unrepresentative point of view of all that is best in Southern Rhodesia it would be hard to find, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after his years of experience and the great service he has rendered to the State, might have taken a little more care before he made mischievous observations of that kind.

Mr. John Dugdale: As a matter of interest, has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of how many people are represented by that organisation?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to put that question down to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and if it is in order, I am sure a reply could be given.
As we have a debate this afternoon in midstream of the Conference, it is a good thing to say a word of welcome to the many people taking part in it. I should like to give a welcome to the men of our own race, the British race, from the three territories who are here engaged in the Conference. Without their pioneer work, their capital, their efforts and their teaching we should not now be discussing

whether Africans ought to be represented at the Conference or not. On the work of these devoted people the future development of Africa and the welfare of the Africans themselves largely depends.
I should like to say how glad we are to welcome Sir Godfrey Huggins and his associates from Southern Rhodesia and to pay public tribute to the remarkable story of the development in Southern Rhodesia. We welcome also the officials and the settlers from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and we are delighted to have them here.
While we deeply regret that the Conference is being conducted without African representation from Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia, as I have been present throughout the Conference I should like to pay a special tribute to the two African representatives from Southern Rhodesia. Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Savanhu, for the invaluable contributions they are making to our discussions.
I do not think there is any need at this hour to stress the arguments in favour of federation. No alternative has yet been advanced to it, and the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who asked whether economic co-operation could not be achieved without confederation, in one part of her observations showed that she herself had doubts on that score. There are overwhelming arguments, which will emerge when a concrete proposal is ready, whereby the capital development of these three territories can most effectively be carried out by achieving political federation as well.
I have read with great interest, as hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have done, the recent book by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), called "In Place of Fear." In one part he was writing of the Orient, but it is equally true of Africa. I should like to commend the following words to the Committee, and not least to the right hon. Gentleman himself:
If democratic institutions are to be helped to take root, it can be done not by sending professors to teach the virtues of democratic constitution, but by sending the means to raise their material standards. Man must live before he can live abundantly.
Those observations were shown also in the admirable speech from the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), who made it quite plain that the spiritual


and constitutional progress in Central Africa depends largely on economic development.
I am quite prepared to agree that economic development cannot be justified by itself unless it leads to the richer and fuller life that we are all anxious to see. I would certainly make it one of the tests of federation—when we can look back, as I hope we shall, in future years on a successful federation—to be able to ask ourselves: has this Federation helped to meet the hunger and the disease in Central Africa? Has it given wider chances of education for the ordinary African? Has it given him the chance also to become a skilled worker and break down some of the difficulties which now prevent that happy development?
To listen to some of the speeches in the House, not least the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, one would think that there was no alternative to the words of the letter recently published in the public Press,
the idea of an Imperial Trusteeship fighting an inevitably losing battle against the settler interests
in Central Africa. We deny that is so. We believe that there is an alternative, and we are now doing our best to work out such an alternative.
This debate was really occasioned by an exchange at Question time between myself and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) a few days ago on the question of the continuance of the Conference in the absence of representative Africans from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery appeared to criticise the first official Conference because it was a conference of officials and Africans were not represented. This is no charge against Her Majesty's present Government; it was set up by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. We agree with him that it was right at that time to limit it to officials. As he said in the House, there were not at this stage Africans with qualifications necessary to take part in it.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There was, of course, another reason. From the very beginning, it was understood between all the Governments that this would be a technical committee to examine the problem, and none of the Governments concerned desired to commit themselves

in advance to anything which it might produce.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will come to this question of the absence of leadership in regard to these proposals. I believe that so many of our difficulties are due to that.
Then came the Victoria Falls Conference. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if Africans had not attended that Conference he would not have gone on with it.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the Minister has asked this question—I have not referred to it—I would say that on the second day of the Conference some of the representatives of one of the countries asked that the Africans should leave. I said, "If they leave, I leave, too."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not dealing with what would have happened if in mid-Conference the Africans had withdrawn, particularly if they had done so after some bitter exchange of words at the Conference. I am dealing with whether the right hon. Gentleman would not have attended the Conference and secured further discussion if there had not been African representation at the start.

Mr. Griffiths: Since the Minister raises this point, I would say that I made it perfectly clear that I would not have attended the Conference in the absence of African representation. I should not have stayed if they had not stayed. It was perfectly clear to all the other countries concerned.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must of course accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the chance will arise a little later of carrying that point further if time allows.
The January talks here were not a conference. They were an exchange of views, provided for in the annexe to the Victoria Falls communiqué, which resulted in the date of the July Conference being antedated to April. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest today that if the Conference had not been held until July, as was originally intended, the Africans would have attended that Conference. There is no indication whatever of that. The letter in "The Times" today, signed by


six of the African representatives, in which it is stated that whatever the safeguards they would not be satisfied, carries further my point that there is no evidence whatever of that kind.
I now come to the present Conference. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has gone into considerable detail about the efforts which he and the Government have made to persuade African representatives from the northern territories to attend. We told them that they would not be committed to the principle of federation in general or to any proposal in particular; they could walk out in the middle of the Conference if they wished; they need not sign anything; we would give them written word to the effect that they came subject to those limitations. We told the representatives of Northern Rhodesia that if they had any other idea which they would like discussed as well we were quite prepared to submit that to our colleagues at the Conference.
Then came the offer by the Nyasaland representatives to attend as observers. Other Governments were involved, and we had to consult them. The next day we told those representatives that we should be glad to have them. They then decided not to come. The reason they gave for that, and I must accept it, is that the Press would not be present. There was never any idea of the Press being present at a Conference of this kind. The Press was not present at Victoria Falls.
I have been reading lately an account of Victoria Falls in a leading weekly. I do not agree with all the details of it, but it says:
What exactly transpired at Victoria Falls, that abortive Conference that was so mercifully ended by the news of the General Election"—
in England—
will never be known. The Press was excluded, and the official communiqué shed a very misty light on the proceedings.
Perhaps the chance will arise of developing a little further the point that we have just passed.

Mr. Griffiths: What is the point?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will quote to the House from the record of the 12th meeting of the African Protectorate Council,

at which the right hon. Member for Llanelly said:
I told the House of Commons in June of my anxiety, which the House fully shared, that not only the Governments of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia should be represented at the Conference, but also the African and European people of the two Protectorates. I am grateful to His Excellency the Governor for making arrangements to give effect to this and for inviting the African Protectorate Council to choose representatives. It will be my duty, which I shall fully carry out, to convey to the Conference the views which you have conveyed to me. But, in doing this, I should be reinforced if you were with me to express them personally.
The only possible argument from that is that it would be his duty to convey them anyhow but he hoped that they would be present to enable him to be reinforced when presenting their views.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the Minister agree to publish the whole of this correspondence? Let me carry the matter a stage further. At that first meeting they decided that they would not send delegates. I intimated to them that I would not go in their absence. They reconsidered the matter and finally decided to attend. That was the first meeting. I was pleading with them to attend and put their point of view. They rejected that suggestion at first and then accepted it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are both entitled to our view. I have been quoting from the record of the 12th meeting of the African Protectorate Council, which is already available. It is in the House, but we will see that further copies are made available.
To our regret, the Nyasaland Africans withdrew their own suggestion about coming as observers and said that the reason was that the Press was not to be represented. We very much hope that they had not also been persuaded, against their better judgment, from coming as observers, because if that should be so I think that while we are all naturally anxious to encourage the further association of Africans with the Government of their own affairs, we have to remember and they must remember, that a readiness to take unpopular decisions, a readiness to do something that may be misunderstood, is essential if people are to take a creative part in political affairs.
I said that one of the reasons why the Africans are not at the Conference now


is, I think, the absence of a lead by the late Government in the United Kingdom on this vital question of federation. The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that the late Government over-rated, he thought, their powers of persuasion. Our argument is that they did not use their powers of persuasion. We have been terribly handicapped in this matter by the absence of a recognised scheme upon which informed criticism can be brought to bear.
It was the purpose of this Conference to prepare such a scheme, to get the informed criticism and comment, but we have also been very much handicapped by the failure of the last Government to say clearly that they hoped the Africans would accept this scheme. To quote the Secretary for Native Affairs in Nyasaland, speaking at the February meeting of the Protectorate Council:
We return, you see, to the closed mind.
He used exactly the same words as the hon. Member for Wednesbury. Then he used these words:
I must say quite frankly, and it is time that I said it, that I think that the attitude of the Nyasaland Africans of simply holding up their hands and just refusing to have anything to do with it because they do not like it is based on a misunderstanding. I know very well"—
these are the words to which I wish to draw the attention of the House—
that you have been subjected to intense propaganda and you have been told on no account to discuss these things, nor to go into detail and to have nothing to do with it. Government has stood back to let you form your own opinion of the report.
I do not agree with those who say, "Why did you ask the Africans at all?" But I do agree with those who say, "Why did you ask them without saying what you as their leader and trustee hoped they would agree to do?" I was reading lately a comment on a conversation of an old man in Nyasaland who said—I believe to a district officer—"For 30 years when the British Government have wanted me to do something which they thought was to my good they have said it was a good thing. When they were speaking about federation they said, 'We cannot tell you whether it is a good or a bad thing, it is a thing and you must make up your mind.' That being so," he said, "it is probably a bad thing and I am against federation."

Mr. Griffiths: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has a copy of the White Paper in which I made the statement on 8th November, 1950. We said first we would not be committed in advance, and then I said we would publish the Report. Then I said this would include consultation with African opinion in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in accordance with His Majesty's Government's statement in the House of Commons, that full account would be taken of it before African opinion could be considered, and we agreed to consult them before arriving at a decision.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is our opinion that it is the duty of a trustee while consulting them also to make it perfectly plain what we think ought to be done. We know that a great deal of misunderstanding has been caused, at any rate in Nyasaland, due to the opposition of one man, one of whose documents in London was actually prepared and printed before the official recommendations were even published.
We know what anxieties and difficulties there are, because of the absence of a lead, in the minds of Africans, and we are doing all we can to dispel them. Their land will remain their territory, native courts will remain and development of self-government within the territories will also remain a territorial subject. Immigration will be easier to handle with a wider federation. Incidentally it will be easier also to bring in immigrants from the British Isles to a federation. In regard to the misunderstandings over immigration, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said again to the Nyasaland Council, that immigration was proposed as a federal subject which was to make it easier to keep people out of Central Africa whom they did not want and not to make it easier to bring them in.
It is due, also, I know, to some of the misunderstandings and genuine difficulties created by different forms of administration in Southern Rhodesia. I do not propose at this moment to go into the problems of the Industrial Conciliation Act and the Pass Laws, but I would ask hon. Members particularly interested to read again the Report of Major Sir Granville Orde Brown, late of the Colonial Office, who with every sympathy went into the problem in Southern Rhodesia and some of the conclusions to which he came.
The Industrial Conciliation Act leads me to a further observation. We believe that much of the difficulty has been due to a feeling that the policy of partnership will not be honourably invoked and honourably worked out.
The right hon. Member has once more criticised Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Rhodesia for delay in coming to conclusions in regard to partnership.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman must not misinterpret. I did not complain about delay in coming to conclusions, but in initiating the discussions on partnership.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will therefore listen very patiently to what I have to say. The final communiqué of the Victoria Falls Conference was issued on the 21st September. This explained that Africans in Northern Rhodesia would be willing to consider federation after the policy of partnership in Northern Rhodesia had been defined, and as so defined put into progressive operation. Two days later, on 23rd September, Mr. Moffatt, the European representative of African interests in the Legislative Council and delegate with two African councillors—I have no need to dilate on Mr. Moffatt's contribution to solving the problem—explained the communiqué paragraph by paragraph to the African leaders. Similar meetings were held in the Copper Belt in that and the following week, and the reception for about a week was favourable.
On 8th October, a fortnight after, Mr. Moffatt and the officials held five informal meetings at which Mr. Sokota and Mr. Yamba were present, when they put the case for an agreed definition with vigour, as we knew they would do. One meeting was held at Broken Hill and another at Lusaka. At these meetings preliminary definitions of partnership were discussed.
A few days later there was a conference of African Urban Advisory Council members from Copper Belt towns and at this, on 28th October, they denounced the policy of partnership and the Victoria Falls communiqué and refused to associate themselves with any further discussion of the matter. Therefore, it became

a matter for the Government. A special meeting of the African Representative Council was held at Lusaka and an effort made to try to persuade them once more to come into the talks. But they only agreed if the words in the Victoria Falls communiqué, "would be willing to consider" were amended to "might consider." The Council did, however, agree to consider a definition of partnership if the Government prepared one.
The Governor and Executive Council, in the last few months, have been evolving a draft statement and it was issued on 8th April. All hon. Members will have read it with interest, and I would commend it to those who want to see what partnership in Africa can be. Representation on township councils and in framing legislation in which an ever growing number of Africans can take part are provided for in this communiqué.

Mr. Griffiths: That was issued on 8th April. From September to 8th April those responsible for the Government took no steps to bring Europeans and Africans together to discuss the matter.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If that were true, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Government until 25th October, that is six or seven weeks. But it is not true, and I have been at pains almost week by week to give a summary so that the right hon. Gentleman would be convinced.

Mr. Griffiths: The proposal which I discussed with the Governor and officials was that they should convene a conference of the European representatives and the Africans. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me when, if at all, any conference of that kind was called?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that to have a conference people have to agree to turn up, and that is one of the difficulties we are considering now. On 8th October informal meetings were held and a number of difficulties were discussed. But, between the 8th and the 28th—and it is a large territory where a great deal of communications are necessary—in those 20 days, the African representatives changed their minds and refused to come in on this joint discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more than I do of the real


difficulties of getting a working system of partnership going in Northern Rhodesia. He has had a long and honourable association with the National Union of Mineworkers and is anxious to find a way out of this difficulty. The only desire of the European miner in Northern Rhodesia is to protect his standard of living and the desire of us all is to see that Africans are filling a growing number of skilled jobs.
All I can say of value at the moment to our European friends, is that history shows that the relations of advanced and backward labour are much more complementary than they are competitive. The increased employment of Africans will increase the number of supervisory, responsible and specially skilled jobs by Europeans and the more the African earns, the more the African will need and European employment can also be advanced in that way. That is a very important problem. It is one to which I think hon. Members of the party opposite could well address themselves and use all the influence they have to try to find a way out of this great difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman certainly had, and I know we can look for every help from other hon. Members.
The fear in the minds of many Africans, after the long delay and the absence of a lead, is that this is only the thin end of the wedge of amalgamation, or that something of that kind may follow. In the Bantu language anyway, I believe that there is no word to distinguish between amalgamation and federation. As one of the members of the African Council in Nyasaland said, they have trusted Her Majesty's Government today, but times change and men change, and assurances may in the course of time be weakened.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, suggested that the only entrenched clauses we were determined to insert in the federation plan would be similar to those in the South African plan. I was not myself old enough to play a prominent part at the time of those deliberations, but it is quite untrue in this particular case, as I made plain in an interruption. The powers most closely affecting African interests will remain in the hands of the territories, and cannot be taken from them without their consent, without a constitutional amendment and the process of invoking Her Majesty's pleasure and the necessary Orders in Council.
If it is true that there is a fear among Africans that no reliance can be placed upon the entrenched clauses because of what is happening in Southern Africa, I would draw the attention of all with powers of persuasion of Africans to this very vital difference. This is a provision on which we are now arguing. We would, I think, have reached the point of discussing amendments to the constitution actually today at the Conference if we had not had this debate. It will be our duty to return to the Conference tomorrow and tackle the difficult problem of amending the constitution.
I hope that we shall have, as a result of this debate, a measure of good will from both sides of the House. I ask those who approach this problem in the right spirit of trying to find a solution which will help Africa and Britain in our hour of need—an hour that may not be unduly prolonged—to give us not only their prayers but their support in this House and outside.

Chairman to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.—[Brigadier Mackeson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TEXTILES (PURCHASE TAX)

7.3 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg to move,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to consider removing the Purchase Tax from textiles in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in this industry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) is to second this Motion and I know that the House would wish to join me in saying how delighted we shall be to see my right hon. Friend back at this Despatch Box.
On 26th March I opened a debate on the textile industry which was moderate in its tone and which, I believe, served a useful purpose in acquainting the House with the bare facts of the situation and in focusing public attention upon them. On that occasion I suggested, among other proposals, the possibility of suspending Purchase Tax upon textiles. On 7th April my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) elaborated upon that suggestion in the debate on the Finance Bill, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in winding up, gave a reply which we regarded as wholly inadequate.
So, apparently, did many hon. Gentlemen opposite, for in the course of that debate leading Members of the Conservative Party's Finance Trade and Industry Committee tabled a Motion calling on the Government to reconsider their policy. That Motion was left on the Order Paper in spite of the reply of the Chancellor, and it subsequently received the support of 44 Members—21 Conservatives, 22 Socialists and one Liberal.
To play our part in ending the suspense into which the industry has been plunged, the Opposition decided to give up part of our time today to a discussion of that all-party Motion. Unfortunately, the rules of the House preclude the discussion of that identical Motion, but the one which we have tabled in its place does not, I think, involve any change of substance, I had hoped that all the sponsors of the original Motion would have felt able to support us on this occasion because the Motion that we have tabled is in line with the letter which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) wrote to "The Times" on 12th April.
Indeed, any case there was a month ago for these proposals has, in our view, been strengthened by subsequent events. But the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, has put down an Amendment which is far weaker. It surrenders to the Government before the campaign is really under way, is vague in its wording and, we believe, does not go sufficiently far to meet the needs of the situation.
Last Thursday, the "Northern Daily Telegraph," a paper which is well-known to many of us and which perhaps has a more intimate knowledge of the weaving belt than any other paper, prophesied that the situation this week in Lancashire would be worse than at any other time, except for Christmas and Easter. That probably means that this week there are over 100,000 workers in Lancashire alone either wholly or partially unemployed.
On the other side of the Pennines the production in most sections of the wollen industry is between 15 per cent. and 30 per cent. less than a year ago, and in February last over 1,600 workers left the woollen industry. In the spinning section of the cotton industry yarn production is down by one-third and the number of workers in spinning dropped by 10 per cent. between November and 12th April. In the last few weeks the drain away has been at the rate of more than 1,000 a month in the spinning section, many of them key workers. Indeed, the dispersal of a labour force built up with such difficulty is one of the most serious effects of the stagnation from which we are begging the Government to save the industry while its long-term future is under consideration.
I wish to impress on the House that we have never proposed what has been called a "tax-free holiday." It is a phrase which has only been used by the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson), by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and by the Foreign Secretary when he visited Blackburn on Friday to demonstrate that there is no split in the Conservative Party. That is the sort of situation with which all of us in the House are acquainted from time to time. I cannot find anything in the speeches of my right hon. Friend which could bear that interpretation of a tax-free holiday, and certainly we would have little sympathy with such a proposition.
Our attitude is quite clear. The original justification of Purchase Tax was that it increased prices and discouraged consumption. That was a sound policy in a time of few goods and inflated purchasing power. Today, however, we have a surplus of goods and a weakening of demand which has arisen from the rise in the cost of living. If Purchase Tax discouraged buying in days of easy money it must surely do so to an even greater extent when money is short.
On 7th April my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, said:
We have always said that this was a tax that should be used in the interests of economic planning. Just as we cut down consumption deliberately when it is necessary, so if we want to encourage consumption we should be prepared to take it off. I believe that the time has come when we definitely ought to encourage the home consumption of textiles. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2428.]
When we have spoken of this being a temporary measure, we have not had in mind a matter of weeks or months. Our aim is to give this help to the industry until the sellers' market returns, and that may be two years, three years, or even longer, but we cannot accept the view that any Government or party can commit itself to renouncing for all time so valuable a source of revenue as the Purchase Tax, particularly as it is, or should be, primarily carried on the more expensive luxury products.
There is one other misconception which I should like to try to remove at this stage. The Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary have spoken as if we believed that the Purchase Tax is the main cause of our troubles, and that its removal is our only constructive suggestion for remedying them. No one who has studied the speeches which we on this side of the House have made could seriously hold that view.
On the 26th March, we did our best to stress the real causes of the recession, and to suggest other remedies which could be applied by the Government—the placing of defence contracts, a further meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers, the search for new markets overseas and international action to stabilise the cost of raw materials. One of these suggestions, the speeding up of defence contracts, has produced action by the Government, but the acceptance of one

suggestion does not justify the Government in turning down the others.
The placing of defence contracts will help some sections of the wool and cotton industries, but they will not help others, and those other sections are the ones like the fashion section and the furnishing fabric section, which the removal of the Purchase Tax would tend to help. We believe that all these remedies which have been suggested are necessary if the industry is to be helped out of the doldrums.
Far be it from me to suggest that the removal of the Purchase Tax in itself would initiate a new era of prosperity, but we believe that its removal could not fail to remove a handicap to sales, to give consumers a psychological stimulus, and to free the industry from what we believe to be an intolerable imposition in a world clouded by recession. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West, hit the nail on the head when he asked what the bricklayers would say if half of them were out of work and there was a heavy tax on houses?
The "Manchester Guardian" of 9th April commented on the speech which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made on 7th April. It said:
Purchase Tax in its present form under the D scheme is a handicap to recovery of a kind with which Lancashire's competitors have not to contend. In that sense the Government is intensifying the depression.
It really is ironical that no other textile industry in the world is treated in the way in which we treat our textile industry. I wonder if the Government have looked at it in this way. Today, our most dangerous rival, the Japanese textile industry, is clamouring for a Government subsidy of £15 million a year. At the same time, our own Government, quite apart from Income Tax and Profits Tax, is imposing a Purchase Tax burden of between £80 million and £100 million a year upon our own industry. I say that that is grossly unfair.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I fear that the hon. Gentleman, in his lucid speech, has fallen into an exaggeration. That figure covers the whole of the section, including boots and shoes and everything else.

Mr. Greenwood: It covers all that section in the Schedule to the Act, but the Chancellor will also agree that the figure for textiles alone is something in


the neighbourhood of £80 million. It may be a little more or a little less, but I think I am right in saying that that is the figure. However, I will cut the £100 million and compromise with the right hon. Gentleman at £80 million. I still believe that that is unfair, when we consider that other textile industries in the world are asking for Government subventions.
Those are the reasons which have prompted us to continue with this campaign for the removal of the Purchase Tax, and I am sure that similar reasons have prompted the many organisations which have made similar demands. I think that many of us here tonight will remember Members of the present Government in the last two Parliaments making constant pleas for less Government interference and for letting the men who know get on with the job. That is exactly what we are asking today.
All the trade unions in the woollen, cotton and clothing industries have joined in these demands. So have the Cotton Board, the Wool Textile Delegation and the Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association. So have the Furnishing Fabrics Federation, representing a large number of interested organisations. So have the National Chamber of Trade and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, a body which is famous throughout the world for its knowledge of the textile industry and the conditions which it needs to give it a chance to prosper. Those are the men who know the job, and, today, it is the Government who are interfering. Why? Because the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to surrender a yield from Purchase Tax which he will not get in any event if the present recession continues.
I found surprising support for our point of view in the report of a company meeting which appeared in Friday's Press. The chairman of that meeting in his speech, spoke as follows:
Whatever justification there may originally have been for this tax when supplies were limited and it was desired to discourage consumption, this now no longer exists. By applying Purchase Tax to a greatly increased range of articles, the Government has extended the use of what is now proving to be an inflationary tax, and is to this extent, on a falling market, preventing a healthy fall in retail prices, with all its implications on the cost of living.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: What is the name of the company?

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The company is Lewis's Investment Trust, of which Lord Woolton was until recently so distinguished a member.
After that vicious stab in the back for the Chancellor, I read with very great regret, but, I confess, without surprise, on another page of the paper, a headline which ran:
Butler Says He Took Aspirin 'To End It All'.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Only Aspirin?

Mr. Greenwood: I do not want tonight to give many details of how the D Scheme hits various sections of the industry, but I do want briefly to refresh the memory of hon. Members. Of over 120 Utility furnishing fabrics, for example, previously tax-free, all but three now carry the tax, and the "Manchester Guardian" has maintained that the Budget has made most cotton and furnishing fabrics of decent quality prohibitive for the ordinary buyer.
To give one example, printed linen, which was 11s. 9d. before the Budget, is now 15s. 9d. A lady's woollen suit, specification 227D, had a ceiling price of £11 14s. 3d. under the Utility scheme; today, under the D Scheme, the same suit costs £12 17s. 0d., an increase of more than £1. Knitted gloves were all free of tax before the Budget. Today, all of them are subject to tax.
I understand—perhaps the Financial Secretary when he replies will correct me if I am wrong—that of the yield that the Chancellor expects from textiles this year, over half will come from goods which were previously tax-free. I only add on this part of my speech that even before the Budget, it was almost impossible to sell goods in the higher Utility grades. How much more difficult it will be to get them out of the pipeline now that they are subject to tax.
I notice that the Foreign Secretary, at Blackburn, argued that there is no reason for removing Purchase Tax from those textiles which carry it, because tax-free goods are not selling either. That seems to me to be fantastic reasoning. If it is difficult to sell tax-free goods, it is


infinitely more difficult to sell goods which carry tax, and the effect of the present scheme is to penalise the manufacturers of those goods and the work-people they employ.
That brings me to a further objection to the scheme. The greatest safeguard for our industry for the future is the quality of the goods that we produce. I am told, however, that retailers, by fighting shy of goods which come above the D line, are encouraging manufacturers to debase quality. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary for Overseas Trade, whom I am glad to see in his place, at least know what effect that will have on our export trade.
With the development of textile industries in other countries, international trade in textiles, as the Douglas Committee reminded us, may become increasingly confined to high-quality and speciality articles, and debasement of quality in the home market will handicap us seriously in markets abroad.
In conclusion, I want to say this to the Government. The placing of defence contracts, for which we pressed and which we welcome, will have some effect, but its importance should not be exaggerated. It can only help certain sections of the woollen and cotton industries. It is, moreover, an unnatural boost, which cannot help in the long run. When the new contracts have all been placed, the total value of Government contracts for textiles will be in the neighbourhood of £85 million.

Mr. Frederick Lee: May I help my hon. Friend? I had an Oral Question down to the Chancellor today which was not reached. The reply points out that of the £4,700 million defence programme, approximately £200 million will be for expenditure on clothing and textiles.

Mr. Greenwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Apparently, between £85 and £90 million worth of that has already been placed. The point I was making is that we will not get a balanced industry on a basis of that kind, and the sooner we get down to long-term planning, the better it will be.
The removal of the Purchase Tax also would do something to help the industry, although the importance of this, too, should not be exaggerated. It would be

an encouragement to the industry and an indication of the Government's awareness of the situation. It would give a breathing space while the Government work out their long-term plans for the industry and for the introduction of new industries to the textile areas.
In the meantime, however, skilled men are leaving the industry, mills are closing and looms are being sold, and unless we are careful we will get a haphazard, unorganised, chaotic running down of the textile industry, which will not help the interests of the textile areas and which will leave the industry permanently weakened and unable ever again to play the great part that it has played in the past.
As the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce has said in pleading for the removal of the Purchase Tax, the industry does not want straws; it wants a lifebelt. If the Government will throw that lifebelt tonight, we shall be the first to applaud their action and to lead the cheers that will echo tomorrow around the slump towns in the textile areas.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. George Tomlinson: I beg to second the Motion.
It is so long since I had the privilege of addressing the House that I feel like asking for its indulgence; and yet, at the risk of offending my doctor, I felt that it behoved me as an individual, as well as a representative of the textile workers of Lancashire, to come here and say my little piece in the debate.
I want to say straightaway that we are not putting this suggestion forward as a solution, but as a means of priming the pump so that we might begin again the flow of buying. If it is asked why we are asking for preferential treatment, my answer is because we have earned it by our past contribution to the State. Fifty years ago, I entered the textile industry as a half-timer. I was literally born into the mill. The Minister of Labour will understand me when I say that in those days, we did not need employment exchanges. The employer knew when children were coming, and their names were in his book long before school-leaving age was reached.
Since those days, many are the vicissitudes through which the industry has passed. Everybody realises that over the


years it has made a great contribution to the export trade. Even before the first motor car which now heads the list was on the first drawing board, the cotton industry had helped to build the greatness of the country from a trading point of view. What has been the reward of the workers over the years? In so-called good times, starvation wages. In bad times, Poor Law relief, the workhouse and, in later years, Public Assistance and the Means Test. It has always been difficult to keep the bitterness out of one's soul when dwelling upon the treatment of the workers in our industry over the last half century.
When I began work in 1902, I had the princely wage of 2s. 3d. per week as a half-timer; and 5s. at 13 years of age for 55½ hours' work. Married men, fathers among them, were fortunate if they could earn 25s. or 26s. per week. And those wages carried on for many years. It was said at the time that in the two hours before breakfast on Monday morning, we could meet the needs of the home market; and the rest of the week, the remaining 53½ hours, were for the export market.
In 1914, when I was married, we never turned a wheel for eight weeks. The reason was that war had begun and every piece of cloth on the eight looms that my wife and I were running was for the central European market. Until the markets had been adjusted, we had to play off. Last year, I remind the House, 75 per cent. of the finished cloth was for the home market, and only 25 per cent. for the foreign market. It is to the home trade, therefore, that we must look for the future of the industry.
I was interested to read in the "Sunday Express" last week that it was no accident that in the rain-soaked areas of Lancashire the cotton industry was established. No, it was no accident. The dampness in the atmosphere held the strands of cotton together. Many an experience of mine brought home that fact. I remember on more than one occasion going to work along with my father on a Saturday morning, with my mind on the cricket match in the afternoon, and the drizzling rain as it came down bringing forth from him the exclamation "It's a grand morning for weaving." I could see nothing grand in it, but I realised as the years went by

that the holding together of the strands of cotton because of the damp atmosphere meant all the difference between a reasonably good wage and a very poor one. Therefore, I could understand his enthusiasm for the rain which I had earlier failed to appreciate.
Forty years ago most people in Lancashire felt that we should always keep our monopoly in cotton because of the climate. They did not realise in those days that science could and would come to the aid of industry and produce the Lancashire climate in a weaving shed in India, which is what took place. I worked in a mill where the first humidifier was installed by the Oldham firm of Clayton and Company, Limited. It seems to me that the splitting up of the drop of water by the jet was almost as great a revolution from the standpoint of Lancashire as the splitting of the atom, for it enabled that competition to begin from which we afterwards began to suffer.
I remember the time when in the village adjoining that in which I was born and in my own village, most of the mills were engaged in the weaving of what we called duty. I am open to correction, but I should be very surprised if there is a single mill in any one of those villages today which is producing a single duty, and yet between 11 or 12 of those mills were so engaged full-time. The consequence was the murder of villages.
I have seen places where practically everyone working in a mill owned his own house. Those people had paid for them painfully over the years on a mortgage through the Co-operative Society, spending almost a lifetime in paying for them. As a result of the recession that took place in the cotton industry I have seen those houses go back to the mortgagee in the next generation. The same thing is happening today. There are people in those villages who again have begun the task of seeking to buy their houses, and although we are told how desirable it is that they should own their houses, because of the circumstances they can no longer keep up the payments.
For 40 years, like the children of Israel, we were in the wilderness. In 1938, when I came to this House, I tried to make the House cotton conscious. Week after week and month after month, in order and out of order, I talked cotton. I failed, in spite of all


my efforts. I could never get a Minister of Labour to understand that there was such a thing as under-employment. It was one of the worst industrial maladies of this century, and yet the rest of the country never understood it, and does not yet. Then came 1939 and the war.
In 1941, at the behest of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), I went to the Ministry of Labour. Industry had to be concentrated to give us munition workers, and it was decided to start with the cotton industry. I still have a feeling that I was chosen to help the Big Six so that there would be someone to "take the can back" if we failed. However, we concentrated the industry, and I think it will be agreed that the scheme for cotton was fair. As its author, I take some pride in that. We got the workers into munitions, and everybody agrees that they did a good job.
But, more than that, we had at the Ministry of Labour for the first time a man who understood the cotton workers and knew something of the history of cotton. He introduced the Essential Work Order for the munition and other industries, and to keep workers in any industry it had to be applied. Those Members who were in the House at that time will remember that three conditions had to be satisfied. The work had to be essential, welfare arrangements had to be satisfactory and a guaranteed wage had to be paid. Thus, for the first time, we solved the problem of underemployment and, so far as the cotton industry was concerned, we saw the promised land. For 10 years we built up confidence in the industry. We persuaded the workers to return at the end of the war. We made a great contribution to the balance of payments, leaving exports stable for a long time.
Now, in the last six months, we have returned to slump conditions. The older people in the industry are afraid, and the young ones will be getting out. It may be asked, how will the abolition of Purchase Tax help? It will cheapen the product and help people to buy again. It is a strange thing, but the workers in this industry have never been able to buy their own products. In 1944 I went for the first time, thanks to a beneficent Government, to the United States of America. After the second

week I ran short of underpants. I went to Wannamakers, in Philadelphia, and asked to see some underpants. A man brought them out. I said, "Have you nothing rougher than this?" He said, "No." "Well," I said, "I had better take them," and I bought four pairs. They were made of sea island cotton. I had woven thousands of yards of it, but I had never been able to buy a pair of pants made of it. No, that was not for the workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) spoke of the better class qualities of textiles which are now subject to Purchase Tax. Those have never been in the homes of the workers. Take off the Purchase Tax and give us an opportunity of looking at the best stuff and wearing it. We can solve the problem if only we may have the opportunity of buying back that which we have produced. I have heard the argument about stocks being piled up and that, therefore, the removal of the Purchase Tax would not immediately increase the demand that we want to get the looms running again. There may be stocks in the warehouses, but I can assure hon. Members that there are not stocks in the homes of the people. No worker buys more than two shirts. In the old days he bought only one, and he could never afford to buy more than two. Such people do not change the habits of a lifetime over night. Give them an opportunity to get the best, by removing the Purchase Tax.
If I am asked what we can do, my reply is this. I know all about the long-term programme. People have been talking in terms of long-term programmes during the 50 years that I have been in the industry, but they have never materialised. Why? Because the industry all the time has been running for profit and never to meet the requirements of the people. What else can be done if we do not do this? It is the only practical thing that can be done at the moment, and three generations in my lifetime have earned this consideration.
What it will cost the Chancellor I do not know, but I say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being responsible for the country's finances, owes it to this industry for what it has contributed in the past. Therefore, I ask him with full confidence not only to do what he can,


but to make the gesture that will bring hope to people who are now living in despair. We can close the dollar gap at the expense of Lancashire, but if we do that we shall be murdering the people of that county for the sake of an economic credit, for once more will be experienced that which we all declared should not happen again and the whole county will be sacrificed.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I beg to move, to leave out from "removing," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
reducing or amending the Purchase Tax on textiles and to take any measures including acceleration of orders for textile goods in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in this industry.
I think the first thing I ought to do on behalf of the whole House is to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). He is a political neighbour of mine on one side, as is the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) who moved the Motion, on the other side. I am sandwiched between them. I can only say that though we may frequently differ—and my constituents frequently do differ from him—in that part of Lancashire he is held in great affection and regard, and everybody will be delighted to think that he is on his feet again and making a contribution in the eloquent terms to which we are all accustomed. I do not agree with a great deal of what he said, but I am coming to that a little later.
The first question we have to ask ourselves this evening is, why are we having this textile debate? I think it is a "pretext-ile" debate, that it is just a pretext for right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who a month ago had a debate at great length on textiles, to try to get a political advantage because they thought that what had been put down by my hon. Friends and myself might lead to an embarrassing situation. For the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, that is a great fall indeed, because when he opened the debate a month ago, a debate from which, I think, only the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), and myself were excluded—that is a fair balance—he certainly made, as he said this evening,

a calm, sober and cool survey, and with the undoubted idea at the back of his mind, as did everybody else in the House at the time, to examine this problem, but not sentimentally. Sentimentality is a bad guide; it is emotion divorced from action. That is the best definition of it. It was an attempt to get at the root of the trouble, but I do not feel that either of the two speeches we have heard tonight are really of that character.
Indeed, if we examined the paraphrase of the Motion, we on this side of the House have to ask ourselves which of the two opposing teams seated on the benches opposite is responsible for it. Is it the Hornchurch Harriers, which we have very often seen in action, or is it Attlee Disunited? There have been some transfers from one team to the other, but under what conditions we do not know.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman has asked why we are having this debate. I think we are entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman why he himself put down a Motion on this very subject. Surely he was not abusing the procedure of the House by putting down a Motion which he had no wish to discuss.

Mr. Fletcher: It is a little unusual—for the hon. Gentleman made a speech which was more fitting for next week when we come to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—that hon. Members should take three hours out of their precious time to do it. I think the accusation I have made lies very fully.
This debate is brought forward solely with the idea of creating a difficult situation between certain Lancashire Members on this side of the House and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it will not succeed. Let us take what was said by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite. There seemed, first of all, to be some confusion as to whether the home trade or the export trade was to be the more important. I think we ought to decide right away that these cannot be divided. If we are going to rely greatly on the one, it must almost always be at the expense of the other.
The first question I want to ask is this. In the last month, not very much has happened to change the situation since the last debate, but how little reference is made to what happened in the year before 25th October last. Every sign


existed then for those who could read them of the serious deterioration of the cotton industry. Order books were no longer full; deliveries were being greatly accelerated; things which it had taken a year or 18 months to get delivered were all immediately available, and no congestion was in the warehouses. What were the hon. Gentleman and his friends doing them? All the things that they are pressing the Chancellor to do now were open to them to do at that time. They were in power and they could have negotiated a great many things then in a much more propitious atmosphere than now.
It leaves in the minds of many of us the feeling that it was probably because they saw they had failed dismally to deal with the things which were going to affect Lancashire and other parts of the country that they found the 25th October a very convenient date to hand over the burden, quite seriously of their creation, to others.

Mr. Lee: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that up to the end of October, in Bury and other Lancashire towns, there were still advertisements on the gates of the mills asking for more hands?

Mr. Fletcher: If the hon. Gentleman will look at previous debates, I think he will find that we were already having warnings from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. We were already realising how very patchy was the situation. Some four or five years after I started warning this country about what would happen in Japan, hon. Gentlemen opposite were jumping on the band-wagon joining in and pointing out the danger that would arise from Germany and Japan. What did they do about looking ahead and taking the necessary steps? No single action was taken during that period to refute the dangers threatening Lancashire.
Today the situation needs careful and dispassionate examination, and I am going to try to give it a little of that. There is no doubt that the words of our Amendment are obviously much wider than those of the Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman opposite. Purchase Tax is only one of many factors which have to come into play. I agree with the hon. Member for Rossendale on one thing

entirely, that my objection to the tax is because of its long-term effect on the quality of goods that Lancashire produces. But it is exactly for that reason that it is vitally important not to rush into its immediate removal altogether if there are other alternatives which can be taken in a progressive attempt, step by step, to rescue the industry.
The foundation step, the basis on which everything else must be done, is to see that the hardly won beginning of stability in our country is maintained. We on this side have had six years of Opposition, and we realise what the difference of the House is on this occasion. We realise, and must realise, that while we ask the Chancellor, for reasons which are perfectly sound, to do a certain thing, he is assailed at the same time by 40 or 50 others which appear to those who put them before him—and they will do so in the coming weeks—equally important.
It is for that reason that we have widened our Amendment so that we may receive, as we hope to and shall in due course, some alleviation through these things, side by side and progressively. We have so far received the bringing forward of purchase for re-armament. That in itself is not the greatest possible relief. It is only Government stock-buying in a form. Even if Purchase Tax were taken off today, that would be inadequate. It is only one step.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I think we all agree that there is no permanent cure for our troubles in the mere removal of the Purchase Tax, but would the hon. Member say what useful purpose is served by the Purchase Tax today? If the answer is none, why does he not join with us in appealing to the Government to take it off?

Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the hon. Member thinks it is a useful purpose to try and balance our Budget.

Mr. Silverman: But we have a large surplus.

Mr. Fletcher: Not if it is taken on the true basis, above and below the line. I think it is a useful purpose to try and balance or have a small margin. Everything else is of no value at all if we do not achieve that.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Would the hon. Member allow me to intervene?

Mr. Fletcher: I have been interrupted several times and on a previous occasion the hon. Lady refused me that same courtesy, so I see no reason to accord it to her now. The hon. Member for Rossendale put forward one very bad theory. He talked of the removal of Purchase Tax for possibly two, four or five years. That really is a ruinous policy in any industry. That is to hang the sword of Damocles over the head of any industry, to make quite certain that the intake of new recruits and new capital and new enterprise is vitiated. Even in present circumstances it is much better to wait a little until the full plan, not produced by hon. Members opposite, is produced.
One of the great evils at the moment is undoubtedly the complete uncertainty in which the industry rests. The job of rescuing it has been made extremely complicated by certain outside factors. I hope hon. Members will agree that what will restore confidence is not when goods pile up here for the home market but when the flow of goods over the quay-side starts again. Everybody in Lancashire realises today that that job will be harder than ever and that we have to face, as undoubtedly we are facing, certain financial losses in the textile industry that we are unlikely to recover. That is the history of evolution, not a counsel of despair. Everybody realises that it is on the great export trade that we have still to depend to a great extent.
I have lived through two of these crises as an importer of textiles in other parts of the world—in Mombasa in East Africa in 1930, when the slump was greater, and in the Far East in 1930 and 1931. There arrives a moment when people's nerves are taut, when they are facing very considerable losses and they hesitate to start buying. The one object at the moment must undoubtedly be to keep the flow over the quay-side even if, to start with, it is only a trickle.
As I see it, this crisis, if it is well handled, need be nothing like so prolonged and dangerous as previous crises have been. The world sponge, with its capacity for absorbing textiles and other goods, is much greater than some people seem to

realise and, despite the competition that will cut into our business very greatly, there is the possibility that if confidence in our finances and ourselves is restored the crisis will pass more quickly than would seem now to be the case.
But we have to have certain circumstances to achieve it. That brings me to what I am sure has impressed the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who assist him at the Treasury as one of the greatest difficulties at the moment. It is the cancellation of contracts that has taken place, thanks to the unilateral action of Australia. There is a danger that South Africa and India may follow suit.
I do not want to take up the time of the House on the principle of sanctity of contract. That cannot be dealt with in a three hours' debate of this kind. It is a most important subject and deserves a special debate of its own. But at the present moment the result of the action that has been taken has been to shake everybody's confidence. It has not only been to put in doubt—because I believe that final repudiation has to be decided in a court of law—whether it is legal or not. I believe that in a large number of cases no action by the Australian Government can bring to an end a contract entered into on an f.o.b. basis where the final decision is not with the buyer but with the seller. I think it will be found that those contracts should be fulfilled.
That does not mean that we should press entirely for fulfilment and do a great disservice to Australia and other countries. It means that we should have a meeting here not one only of financiers, because this is not only a matter of finance, but on the trade side as well. We should have a meeting on the basis that those contracts are not cancelled and we should sit down to a meeting—as happens frequently in business—between people who find themselves in the greatest possible difficulty, not entirely because of blame on either side, and who are looking for a practical solution.
I should like to see a meeting convened before the arrival of Mr. Menzies, who I hope will be only a precursor of representatives of other countries concerned. The trade unions, the chambers of commerce and everybody concerned should have a list of contracts prepared so that when we do get another conference—;as I feel certain we shall—we shall be in a fit state and perfectly ready to


divide those contracts up so that the burden, having been shared, can be eased for everybody.
What will spring from that meeting will be a far greater possibility of doing good for trade within the Empire and outside than would be the case by any other measure. If we do not do that and we go back to a restrictive trade in textiles then anybody can work out for himself that the present crisis in Lancashire is as nothing with what we shall have to face.
But let us, when we are considering this matter, really understand that if we try to blame each other too much and try to apportion unjustly and unfairly as between the results of the play of circumstance and the mistakes made—and I have a very unhappy feeling that that was the origin of today's Amendment by the Opposition—then we are doing the greatest possible disservice to everybody concerned.
There is no doubt about it that competition is serious. But those who study the history of wars know quite well that in their own country during war they always saw the incredible difficulties that they were going through and they always thought that the enemy—the German General Staff or whoever it might be—were marvellous people who got over their difficulties with ease. But when one read the history of the war one saw that the enemy's difficulties were just as great and he made just as many mistakes. That is true today. It is true of Japan. The fact that she is asking her Government for something like a subsidy is proof positive of that. It is not easy in Germany or any of the countries.
What we have to stick to as our absolute bedrock and the firm basis of our future is the restoration of trade and the removal of the trade barriers. When we have established the certainty that we shall be getting our raw material—our cotton—in the best possible circumstances, we shall be able to afford the direct alleviation in respect of which we now ask for some measure of relief.
I am greatly impressed by many arguments for the removal of Purchase Tax—I should not have put my name down to any Motion of this kind if that had not been so—but I realise, equally, that there are times when, if we can get part of a loaf, and if we can get some encouragement, the psychological effect will be

enormous. The first thing to do is to encourage once more our exporters. This is not a crisis of manufacturers; it is a crisis of exporters. The exporters, having had a terrible blow delivered to them through the cancellation of contracts, and facing many other difficulties and uncertainties, need a very great deal of encouragement.
It is not very easy for a firm which has been specialising in the export of textiles for a good many years to find that it is not allowed to export to its best customer. It is not easy for these people to break new ground and to go into other markets, and until you have encouraged the merchanting, which is an integral part of the trade, whatever is done about manufacturing will not have the full effect that it might. I hope that when we get a reply later in the evening from the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary he will take into account the feelings in Lancashire at the present time, as I have tried to take into account his difficulties, which is something that requires a considerable feat of imagination on the part of those who do not know it.
Time and again, every hon. Member representing a Lancashire constituency on either side of the House is asked the question by anxious parents, "Shall I put my boy or girl into the textile trade?" We have been given a history of the textile trade by the right hon. Member for Farnworth, and it is clear that that trade has still a very great role to play. So the honest reply, if it is to be for the good of the country, must be: "Yes, in a great many instances, but not universally." We must recognise what we are to lose. I would ask the Financial Secretary, in replying, to take into account the fact that he should strain to give the maximum amount of relief, and that when the D scheme is taken apart it is true that there are certain unfairnesses in it which have hurt and hit people very hard.
Although he may have to say "No," I hope he will be able to give us the fullest reasons, taking into account all the facts, for not doing what we are asking. In our Amendment we have left him a very wide field. But he must show that he appreciates the need for that practical help which, though it cannot be decisive at the present moment, is so necessary from the psychological view and the


point of view of people who are hard working, honest and who have rendered great service to the country. It must be something which gives them great hope for better things and better treatment to come, and I think that they will undoubtedly get it at his hands.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I beg to second the Amendment.
I must begin, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) by asking why we are again debating the problem of the textile industry within a month of having a memorable and long debate on the same subject The problems which we then discussed are still, alas, with us.

Mr. S. Silverman: They are worse.

Mr. Fort: As the hon. Member has said, from the human point of view they are even worse than they were then because even more of our constituents are out of work. But the other fundamental problems are the same. Stocks are still accumulating; export contracts have been terminated and—I am sure that this will give immense satisfaction to the other side of the House—the industry is still burdened with a tax which, ever since it was introduced, has been a horrid one.
There has been just one change since the last debate and that is the action Her Majesty's Government have taken. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) acknowledging that; though I thought he took perhaps rather undue credit when he suggested that the action has been thought up by Her Majesty's Opposition rather than Her Majesty's Government. The truth of the matter is—and it has been shown by the agitated interruptions from the other side of the House—that the reason we are debating this matter tonight is pure and unadulterated politics. The Opposition have hoped, that, at the best, they can split the party sitting on these benches.

Mr. Nabarro: What a hope!

Mr. Fort: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What a hope!—and at the worst—and I have no doubt that this is what has occurred to the more realistic minds on the other side—the debate would be a little easy fuel which could be used to

stoke up the flames during the electoral campaign next week.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: What is the hon. Member's objection to pure and unadulterated politics?

Mr. Fort: The hon. Gentleman has got me on the hop. He is quite right. Politics are seldom pure—and never from that side of the House.
To see fairly what are the reasons for debating this matter this afternoon, let us look at the history of the development of thought on the other side of the House, that although abolishing Purchase Tax would not solve completely all the textile industry's problems, at least it would be of very great assistance. During the Budget debate, of three hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who know much about the textile industry—the right hon. Gentleman the former Chancellor of the Exchequer the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)—not one of them mentioned the need to abolish Purchase Tax.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I did on the Budget debate, and I was the first to mention it; so the hon. Gentleman will have to exclude me from that.

Mr. M. Follick: rose—

Mr. Fort: I cannot give way.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton, who is perhaps less orthodox than his colleagues did go so far as to suggest that the D level should be greatly raised; but that was as far as he went. Then we had the big textile debate on 26th and 27th of last month. At that time the thought had developed to the point where raising the D level was commonly mentioned. I have notes that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) mentioned raising the D level. Then, a little more boldly, they suggested that it might be possible in the last resort to abolish the Purchase Tax.
Finally, we have had the development of thought in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill that the best thing would


be to use the Purchase Tax as a planning instrument and to abolish the Purchase Tax temporarily. Then, at some future date, perhaps it could be clapped on again.
The hon. Member for Rossendale enlarged upon that theme this afternoon. We heard talk about, not abolishing it for a few weeks, or even a few months, but perhaps for a few years, and the hope that no Government would impose the tax again. This is the first time we have heard anything as extensive an abolition as that for several years. Purchase Tax was certainly spoken about in the earlier debate as though it was a tax which might be taken off until the autumn, or until the Christmas trade came along. That was the impression left then. So much was that the impression left then that today hon. Gentlemen opposite have been at great pains to try to remove that apprehensions, not only from our minds but also from the minds of the public.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: We did that because there was deliberate misrepresentation by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Fort: Let us analyse this a little further. I do not think that interruption has carried the argument much further.
Why are stocks now accumulating? Why should the removal of Purchase Tax for any length of time prevent those stocks re-accumulating when it is again imposed? What we want its to have the tax fixed for a time—say till the next Budget. People have hesitated to buy because they were uncertain whether prices would come down because the Purchase Tax would be reduced. When once the Chancellor has managed to recover our finances sufficiently from the mess the party opposite left them in, he could abolish the tax altogether and for keeps.

Mr. Dryden Brook: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the main factors preventing restocking today is the fear that Purchase Tax will be taken off in the future and retail shopkeepers left with stocks on which they have paid the tax, but for which they have no redress?

Mr. Fort: That is a very sensible argument, but that is exactly my objection to the whole of this argument for the temporary removal of the tax.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: Then why was the original Motion put down?

Mr. Brook: The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) is forgetting what my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) said. Our suggestion is not for a temporary removal of the tax, but for a removal of the tax until such time as the pendulum has swung entirely the other way and we have a sellers' market.

Mr. Fort: That is still a temporary removal of the tax. We want the tax to be fixed so that we know where we are, certainly until the next Budget, when it should be at the top of the list of taxes to be abolished when we are out of our present financial mess, to which hon. Members opposite have contributed. I will not say they made it, but they have contributed to it.

Mr. Rhodes: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of the abolition of Purchase Tax now?

Mr. Fort: I am in favour of abolishing Purchase Tax when once we can forgo the revenue from it because we are out of our present financial difficulties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are too keen on scoring political points. The hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Shackleton), interjected a moment ago to ask why we put down our original Motion. That is a further proof of what I have been saying, that this debate is based on political grounds.

Mr. S. Silverman: Of course it is.

Mr. Fort: Our original Motion asked Her Majesty's Government to reconsider Purchase Tax.

Mr. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Fort: Despite all the nice, quiet and apparently straightforward pleas of the hon. Member for Rossendale, in his Motion he uses the word "removal," and we put down our Amendment in order to have a much wider discussion on the problems of the textile industry.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am loath to interrupt again, but I am sorry to see that this splinter movement itself is now splitting. The right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in his letter to "The Times" suggested two


further steps that can be taken to meet the short-term problem, one of which was to remove Purchase Tax. Is that the view of the hon. Gentleman? Or is he dissociating himself from his right hon. Friend?

Mr. Fort: I have expressed my views, and my right hon. Friend has written to "The Times." I say, let us remove Purchase Tax as soon as circumstances allow. Do not let us hear that the Purchase Tax is not holding up exports as we did when we were on those benches and that this Tax has a distorting effect on the design and quality of goods and, therefore, of exports.

Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman now says he wants to remove Purchase Tax when circumstances permit, but his right hon. Friend wants to remove Purchase Tax to meet the short-term problem. Which of them is right?

Mr. Fort: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the Motion on the Order Paper, and not letters to "The Times."

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman has said he believes that Purchase Tax should be removed only when our circumstances allow. Is he not aware that the Furnishing Fabrics Federation, which as he knows, have been the most badly hit of all, pointed out in their memorandum calling for the complete abolition of Purchase Tax that
it should be stated in no uncertain terms that the perpetuation of the incubus of Purchase Tax on textiles will defeat its own ends
and defeat the financial ends the hon. Gentleman has in view?

Mr. Fort: The hon. Lady has no strong case on Purchase Tax, in view of the arguments she used less than a year ago for treating the full range of Purchase Tax on all high quality goods in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill last year.

Mrs. Castle: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with that. He knows perfectly well what has happened since then. We have had the introduction of the D Scheme, with its profoundly different effects on the whole textile range.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Lady cannot get away from the fact that less than a year

ago she was pressing for Purchase Tax as long as it was on what she called luxury goods.
What I want to hear from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, either this evening or, as is perhaps more likely, on the Finance Bill is that the Purchase Tax is now to be fixed, and that the very first tax to be removed as soon as our financial position allows will be this Purchase Tax, which has be devilled the production of quality goods in our textile industry, and also, no doubt, in other industries, ever since the end of the war.
Let us have those undertakings; and let us also hear that Her Majesty's Government are actively pursuing other measures which will help us in Lancashire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, with his great knowledge of the export trade, enlarged on that. What we all want to hear is confirmation of what the Foreign Secretary said in Blackburn the other evening: that as a long-term help for all of us in Lancashire Her Majesty's Government will assist in bringing new industries into the county. That we also want to hear. Then we shall have felt that we can bring many—certainly everyone on this side of the House and probably all those on the other side who are not actuated by mere partisan politics—to support the Amendment which has amplified their own Motion.

Mr. Follick: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I am standing up.

Mr. Follick: On a point of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member believes that he has an honest point of order, I shall hear it; otherwise, I do not wish to hear it.

Mr. Follick: I wished to correct a false statement.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. N. H. Lever: I was very disappointed at the reaction of the proposer and the seconder of the Amendment, because I thought that the Opposition had been very generous, by its Motion, in giving time for this discussion to enable them to express their views on the subject. When they ask such a question as, "Why is this debate


needed?", they show that at any rate they are not in touch with sentiment in Lancashire, where the gravity and immediate seriousness of the situation is realised, at least by hon. Members on this side of the House.
I was under the impression that we should hear from the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), with his great practical experience of the textile industry, some concrete suggestions, such as we ourselves had made for benefiting the Lancashire textile industry.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Will the hon. Member particularise?

Mr. Lever: All that the hon. Member did was to indulge in a bout of generalisations—"We should survey the whole situation"; "The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be fair to all claims that are made"; "The industry must face its task with courage."

Mr. Fletcher: I did not generalise. I took particular points regarding the export trade. The hon. Member has missed the particular points I made. I have now asked him to particularise and tell us what are his suggestions.

Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman said, "The industry must show courage"; "Export goods must roll off the quays"; "The Chancellor of the Exchequer must be impartial in examining the situation." It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman had joined the ranks of those intrepid defenders of unchallengeable assertions whose advice is so copiously available to Lancashire in her hour of need, and has been for the last half century.
I am not going to depend on the statistical erudition which has been displayed by hon. Members opposite both today and in previous debates. We have a short-term and a long-term problem in Lancashire. The short-term problem is how to get rid of the stocks which are overhanging the market because of the abnormal position created by the Korean war, and the long-term policy is how we can maintain the textile industry in Lancashire sufficiently to maintain the needs of the home market and contribute to the nations paying their way in the world by the process of marketing their raw materials and food supplies.
It is rightly understood that Lancashire's best chance of contributing to

the permanently dwindling world trade in textiles lies in quality goods. It is said by hon. Members opposite that the Purchase Tax operates in precisely the opposite direction. It is defacing the quality of goods produced in Lancashire at a time when it is most vitally necessary that emphasis should be on high quality goods.
I should emphasise that by high quality goods is not meant the merely traditional complex and finished goods that Lancashire produces. It especially means in the time ahead, if we are to play a part in the export trade, new high quality goods, new finishes, new weaves and new raw materials, such as nylon and terraline. These are the kind of high-quality goods by which we can exploit the wealth, talent and inventive genius of Lancashire. There is no evidence that this is going to develop so long as this Purchase Tax is kept on to discourage the production of these new high-quality goods.
I have to draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are three major fields in which there is Government impact on Lancashire's industries and problems. One is Purchase Tax, the second is the rate of increase, and the third is the Profits Tax and E.P.L. In each of these three fields, we must observe that the Government are not acting in the interest of the textile industry, badly hit as it is, but to its detriment.
Let us look at Purchase Tax. We all wish high-quality goods to be encouraged. What would a good Government do? In our hour of crisis they would take off Purchase Tax to encourage trade in textiles. What has this Government done? It is supine and has said that it is not going to take off Purchase Tax because the goods are no longer selling too well. Hon. Members have asked the Government to throw a lifebelt to the textile industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies that he is not throwing any lifebelts to weak swimmers because it is doubtful if the strong swimmers can reach the shore.
What would a good Government do so far as the Bank rate is concerned? It would do everything possible to see that there were finances for every new industry in Lancashire; the production of terraline and nylon, for which there is an immense world market. It would


see that a low rate of interest was available to the textile industry. This Government are charging an iniquitous rate of interest to the Lancashire textile industry when it ought to be able to get credits easily. Consequently, these brilliant new discoveries in Lancashire will not be for the benefit of our country and the people of our country. In addition, E.P.L. positively penalises the taking out of capital and risking it in exploiting these new textile discoveries.
I see that there are a number of other hon. Members anxious to speak, so I will confine my remarks to my main point. The Lancashire textile industry at the present time is losing something approaching 1 per cent. per week of its entire labour force, and it is the best and most talented workers that are going. If continued, the process will leave the Lancashire labour force so depleted in quantity and quality that after a short period the Lancashire textile industry will be in no condition to serve even the home market sufficiently, still less to play any part in the very difficult export battles which are ahead in the textile industry. It is not enough for the Government to say that the fiscal requirements are in contradiction to Lancashire's needs and that they must get in the Purchase Tax over the next six months, if by that time the industry's labour force is so permanently mutilated that it will not be possible for the industry to recover.
I beg the House to bring every possible pressure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to realise that this is not merely a mild depression which is afflicting Lancashire or threatening it in the immediate future. It is the permanent ravaging of the textile trade, permanent mutilation of its labour force and the discouraging of its rich initiative and talent which have contributed so much to our economy in the past.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: I am always glad of an opportunity to discuss the textile trade, so I make no complaint that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have put down their Motion. However, I rather complain that they have given up only half a day. If they had been able to persuade their right hon. and hon. Friends to be a little more generous we might have had

a longer opportunity which would have enabled more of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite to participate in the debate.

Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman's colleagues objected to his having any time.

Mr. Assheton: The Motion which I originally put down is not being discussed. I understand that it was not within the rules of order for hon. Gentlemen opposite to move it and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) himself put a Motion on the Order Paper. It was not quite the same as the one that I had put down. I had asked the House to press the Government to reconsider their proposals. The present Motion calls upon the Government to consider removing Purchase Tax.
When I heard last night that that new Motion was on the Order Paper some of my hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment which has just been moved and seconded by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) and Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) respectively. I am hoping to persuade the House to accept the Amendment. I believe it will suit the House better than the Motion does. Whereas the Motion asks the Government to consider removing Purchase Tax, the Amendment goes a great deal further and asks the Government to consider removing, reducing or amending Purchase Tax and to take any measures, including the acceleration of orders for textile goods, to alleviate the rising unemployment in the industry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Was the right hon. Gentleman informed of the Motion that we were placing on the Order Paper last night? If so, can he tell us who informed him?

Mr. Assheton: Of course I was informed. Otherwise, I could not have set down the Amendment. There was no secret about the Opposition's Motion. It was available to anybody who wanted to see it. As soon as I saw it I decided to set down the Amendment.

Mr. Smith: Where was it available?

Mr. Assheton: It was available on the Table.

Mr. Smith: At what time?

Mr. Assheton: I cannot recollect what the time was. There is no point in all this, because there was no secret whatsoever about it and many hon. Members were talking about it. There was no attempt at concealing it—at all events, I never heard of one—and I made no attempt to conceal my Amendment. My Amendment will help more than the Motion will do to achieve our object, which is to move the Government.
The recession came as no surprise to me nor to many other hon. Members. Speaking in the House in the debate on 25th July last year, to which the hon. Member for Rossendale made a very useful contribution—it was a foreign affairs debate and we were discussing Japanese competition—I said:
Who, in 1913, would have thought that the Lancashire cotton trade stood on the edge of a precipice. Let people who are too satisfied now think of that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1951; Vol. 491, c. 566–7.]
I went on to develop the increasing difficulties which were ahead of us, so there was no secret about it on this side of the House.

Mr. Harold Davies: The right hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that there were any illusions on this side of the House either.

Mr. Assheton: I was just coming to that.
Even the most partisan supporter of the Opposition—I hope that in tonight's debate they will not be too partisan—can hardly blame the recession on the Government. The hon. Gentleman has just made it clear that he knew that the recession was approaching, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) made his celebrated speech on 14th September, 1951, in which he advised housewives to lay off buying in anticipation of a fall in prices, he clearly knew that the recession was on its way. There can be no talk hereafter that the recession was something brought on by the present Conservative Government. I make that point in case of difficulty in the future. I think it wise to put it on record.
In the textile debate on 26th March I made it clear that I was critical of the proposals about Purchase Tax in the Finance Bill and I made certain suggestions. The hon. Member for Rossendale

again made a perfectly reasonable speech, and that led me to hope that Members on the other side of the House who were interested in textile constituencies not only in Lancashire but all over the country would co-operate with Conservative Members in doing all they could to help the textile areas.
It was rather disappointing to me—and I do not mind saying this as the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) is in her place—to find my colleague from Blackburn interested in trying in my constituency to make party capital out of these difficulties. She rather suggested that I was not sincere in what I was doing, but I hope I shall be able to show her that I was and that she will believe me now when I tell her and the House that I am utterly sincere in all I am trying to do for Lancashire. Other hon. Members who represent Lancashire seats and who, like me, were born and bred in Lancashire have never challenged my sincerity in doing what I could for my native county.

Mrs. Castle: I think I should ask the right hon. Gentleman to establish quite clearly where he does stand on this matter. He will appreciate that we have, in fact, brought before the House his own Motion. If he wants to see that all-party action which he said was desirable why is he not prepared to accept our Motion? Will he tell us whether he still stands by his own statement that one of the solutions to this problem is the abolition of the Purchase Tax now?

Mr. Assheton: I am coming to that and I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the hon. Lady on all points and that what I am trying to do I am sincere in doing. I hope the hon. Lady will not think the contrary, for I can assure her that she is not right if she does and I could call witnesses from both sides of the House to support my view.
Her Majesty's Government have promised to give further examination to this problem, and we are hoping to hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the debates on the Finance Bill, or from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary tonight, what they intend to do to deal with this situation. I am a critic of Purchase Tax for a number of reasons


and I cannot expose them all now. I hope, however, to have an opportunity to do so during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, and I hope to be able to continue to press the Government to remove the Purchase Tax. That is what I want them to do and I am going to try to persuade them to remove it from textiles. I want hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies, too, to help me in this. I think that I am going about the job in the best way likely to get something done for Lancashire. I am afraid, however, that hon. Members opposite might spoil my efforts.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think the right hon. Gentleman's object is—and I accept it from him—to get the Government to remove Purchase Tax from textiles, but it is a little difficult for us to understand why he has associated himself with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher), who moved this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), who seconded it, both of whom say that it ought to be preserved now because we cannot afford to lose the revenue.

Mr. W. Fletcher: I did not say anything of the sort. I said that the difficulty in removing it in part or in whole was the loss of revenue, which the Chancellor now has to take into account.

Mr. Assheton: This just illustrates my difficulty. I do not want hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House to try to split us on this point and to throw discord into my efforts. They are trying to make it more difficult for me to get what I want when I am trying to get what they want.
I am now going to put a few arguments to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who is listening intently, I know, to show why Purchase Tax on textiles is thoroughly bad. I find it difficult to see why he should subsidise food and houses and find part of the money for that out of taxing clothes, which are also a necessity of life. Clothing is a necessity of life, and in this 20th century most people will agree with me on that point. I am sorry to see that it is taxed.
Purchase Tax is inimical to our exports. It is only possible to build up a good export trade if there is a good home market to support it. To remind the House of what my right hon. Friend

the Prime Minister said on the subject I would quote these words that he used, so wise were they:
Can we suppose that a fertile and healthy export trade can be maintained except with the overspill of a very much larger domestic trade?
These are two good reasons why Purchase Tax should be removed. [An HON. MEMBER: "Now?"]
A third reason is that exports are vital to us to balance our payments, and in the particular case of textile goods it is quality which is of vital importance. It is becoming more and more important to us as the years go by and as other people in different parts of the world are able to manufacture the lower quality goods. Purchase Tax makes the production of quality goods for export hazardous and costly; hazardous, because frustrated export production, such as the goods which have been rejected from Australia just now, will not be readily saleable on the home market; and costly because the advantages of large-scale production both for the home market and for the export market are destroyed. An hon. Member opposite has pointed out already that none of our foreign competitors imposes such a handicap upon the industry. Many of our foreign competitors pay much lower wages than we, and are not supporting such expensive systems of social services. We are handicapped already in the textile industry, and Purchase Tax is an additional handicap that I want to get rid of.
Naturally, Purchase Tax induces firms to design various kinds of cloth with the narrow objective of avoiding the tax rather than to produce suitable ranges of cloth for the home and export markets. That is another good reason for doing away with it. The effect of all these rigidities is a very great handicap to the development of our trade, and to employment. The increasing anxieties which are felt in regard to employment in Lancashire are well known to every Lancashire Member of Parliament, and, I think, are beginning to be appreciated by hon. Members in all parts of the House. I see one of those hon. Members opposite—the right hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). We sat on the same bench together for a long time during the war. I am one of the Lancashire Members and I, too, was born


and bred in Lancashire and know something about it.
My final point against the Purchase Tax is that the risks of a change in the Tax cannot be hedged as one can hedge a risk in raw materials. That is why the uncertainty which is engendered at every Budget invariably interferes with the trade during a large part of the year. That is one reason why I wish to see that tax removed. That point is well illustrated by the difficulties of the retailers. I hope the Chancellor will consider seriously their difficulties and try to provide for them in any proposals he may make, because uncertainty is the great bugbear.
These are many of the reasons which prompt my friends in the textile constituencies to support the Cotton Board in their plea for the removal of this tax. I fear that the tax is bringing in much less revenue than previously. The Chancellor will have the opportunity of telling us what he is going to do when we come to the Finance Bill. I am still hoping that he will make substantial concessions. I do not know how far the Financial Secretary will be allowed to go tonight, but I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in the textile areas to make it as easy as possible for the Government to give concessions which will help our people in Lancashire.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he was appealing to us to give him more time to influence the Chancellor in this matter. If we concede him that point and give him the support he asks for, would he give us a guarantee that, when the final stage comes, if the Chancellor is adamant, he will support us in the Lobby against the Government to ensure that the Lancashire Tories are in a special position? They can get this concession if they are really in earnest. Is the right hon. Gentleman really in earnest?

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Gentleman is an old negotiator and it is not easy to talk about negotiations in the middle of them. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that I am doing what I think is best in the interests of Lancashire at this time and I hope that all hon. Members will support my Amendment.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward Shackleton: The speech we have just heard is in marked contrast to the peevishness and mock anger of the mover and seconder of this Amendment. They complained that the Opposition Motion had been put down to embarrass them. Whatever purpose it was put down for, it certainly has embarrassed them, and the embarrassment they showed throughout their speeches was marked by the obvious insincerity of the original Motion on the subject of Purchase Tax.

Mr. Assheton: Is the hon. Member challenging me with insincerity in putting down the Motion asking the Chancellor to reconsider those proposals?

Mr. Shackleton: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will deal with him specially. It would be interesting to know why they did put their Motion down. I should like to know what happened. I can imagine, perhaps at 4 o'clock in the morning, the Prime Minister discovering it and wanting to know what had happened. Then they would point out that a number of hon. Members on the Government side, including that experienced Gentleman, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), had put down the Motion. In this case there would be some extenuation. It would be said, of course, that the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West, had an embarrassingly energetic Socialist colleague who was so interested in the cotton industry.
After hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I believe he was entirely sincere, which is more than I believe were many of the hon. Members who put down the original Motion. I believe it was the sheerest hypocrisy designed to enable them to say to their constituents, "We are doing our best for the textile industry and we have this nice Motion in the House of Commons," never thinking they would be called to question on it.

Mr. W. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman has taken it upon himself to make an accusation of insincerity, which is not usual in this House, and he has singled me out. Would he really say that such an accusation can be backed up by any act or speech of mine during the last few years?

Mr. Shackleton: The actions of hon. Members opposite in their speeches today have lent plenty of substance to the remarks I am making, and I would say that the hon. Member was the first to charge insincerity to this side of the House.
The hon. Member went on to make other extraordinary remarks. He wanted to know why we wanted this debate. Surely he realises that since the last debate the situation has deteriorated considerably more. The workers have had the Easter holidays. Some of them, perhaps, have been paid on the basis of one day and have been unable to draw any unemployment benefit and are still paying their contributions to National Insurance.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite are so sincere, may I ask whether it is not a fact that they have admitted that they saw the crisis coming long before now? Why, then, did they not press for the Government at that time to remove Purchase Tax and so prevent this situation arising?

Mr. Shackleton: After that interruption, it is, obviously, impossible to give way again when such irrelevant remarks are made. I do not know whether the hon. Member has been sitting in during the debate.

Mr. Burden: Yes, I have.

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that this was fundamentally a crisis in exports. That is one of the most astounding remarks. Surely he realises that there is gross unemployment in the tailoring trade. How can that be a crisis in exports? It is a crisis in under-consumption in this country, and it is irrelevant—I would say, hypocrisy—to consider that any action short of an attempt to increase the consuming power of our people and of our workers will do anything to solve the problem.

Mr. W. Fletcher: Is the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Shackleton: I cannot give way.

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman spoke of hypocrisy—

Mr. Shackleton: The hon. Member refused to give way, and I must do likewise.
I want to look at the question of Purchase Tax. Many areas—in particular, areas like Preston—which make high quality fabrics, are faced as much with unemployment as any other area. Unless they can be certain—we have been told this dozens and dozens of times by hon. Members who are in the Conservative Party—of a good home market, they cannot get their cost down for their exports. Although no one on this side would suggest that to take off Purchase Tax would by itself solve the problem, there is no question that it would go some way towards helping it.
The very least that the Government can do if they sincerely intend to deal with the problem of unemployment in the textile industry, is to remove the Purchase Tax. But I rather have doubts as to how far they intend to deal with that problem. The Government Economic Survey, which has been published since the last textile debate, makes the point that
the difficulties of recruiting workers for defence production should be eased by the measures which the Government has taken to limit competing demands for labour and materials.
This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), who was accused of making a party political point. Whether this is party political or not, it is part of the Government's policy. They have shown this again in a later part of the Economic Survey, where they say:
If employers have insufficient work to keep their labour force fully employed, it is clearly wasteful to keep on short time workers who could be used to fill important vacancies elsewhere.
The whole tenor is that there should be a move from the textile industries into the armament industry.
But how do the Government believe that that can be carried out? In my part of Lancashire—I believe it is true of the area represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East—there is no opportunity of absorbing this unskilled labour into engineering industries, because there is a shortage of skilled labour. Over a long period, something can be done, but it is the height of indifference to realities to believe that it is possible to see workers transferred from the textile industry overnight, or even over a period of weeks or months, into the engineering industry.
I am personally extremely alarmed at the statement in the Economic Survey, and I hope that we shall have a categorical statement from the Government that if this is their policy they will reverse it, because they will neither solve the problem of the textile industry nor get any more armaments if they believe there will be an automatic flow, driven by hunger and unemployment, into engineering.
I wish to refer again to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East, to find out exactly what is the policy of the Government in regard to the remarkable memorandum issued by the Admiralty in regard to contracts, in the Preston, Blackburn and Chorley area where there is a ban on contracts of any kind. This is borne out again by the statement in the Economic Survey that
Orders will be concentrated in the areas worst affected by unemployment and as a result there may be some lack of balance between the items bought.
Preston is not so wholly a cotton town as are certain other towns. Already industry has been diversified. About 30 to 40 per cent. of our workers are in the cotton industry, but there is no reason why they should or could be taken into engineering.
I hope that we shall see that the Government will look once again at the problems of the textile industry and give what Lancashire is asking for, a clear lead, a plan, a reversal of the fiscal policy which is depressing the living standards of the workers and the people of this country. Only in that way will they solve this agonising problem, a problem which today, at this moment, is worrying countless households, especially in Lancashire. Since the war they have been certain of paying their rent, but now many do not know whether or not they will be evicted in a short time, and those who, under the new "Housing Crusade" of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, hope to own houses, see any chance of that disappearing until the Government are thrown out, back into opposition, where they do so much better than as a Government.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: This debate, although a short one, has been a very interesting and, at times, a lively one. I think it has been made remarkable—

and this has been welcomed on all sides of the House—by the return of my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson), who spoke once again with all his old fire and warmth and enthusiasm.
One cannot take this debate, since it has been so short, entirely on its own. It has to be taken with the debate we had on textiles five or six weeks ago, which was a very much longer debate. I am bound to say, comparing the two debates, that there has been very much less sense of urgency from hon. Members opposite tonight than there was five or six weeks ago. We are bound to ask why there is this lesser sense of urgency. It is certainly true that the situation in the textile districts—all references have been to Lancashire, but I must refer to the textile districts as a whole—has immeasurably worsened in the last four or five weeks. The "Manchester Guardian" reported a few days ago that 100,000 cotton trade workers were unemployed or on short time, that 570 mills were idle and that one-third of the whole labour force of Lancashire was affected by unemployment and short time.
If we look at the production figures we see that the production of single cotton yarn in the week ending 11th April, the week in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), put down his original Motion, was 11.49 million lbs. compared with 17·3 million lbs. in the week, which also included Good Friday, a year ago, a fall of 33½ per cent. compared with a year ago. That was only the week before Easter. Easter week was still worse, because very many mills took a prolonged and, from the point of view of Lancashire, an entirely unwanted holiday.
We are glad to see the Minister of Labour here tonight. I suggest to him that he should resume the publication, in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, of those full, detailed and regular figures we used to have before the war of under-employment in the cotton and other industries. I know that he publishes figures from time to time in the Gazette, but not in anything like the full scale required. Now we have returned—and this is a tragic thing—to the heavy under-employment of pre-war days the House and the country ought not to be kept in ignorance of the extent of that under-employment.
The right hon. and learned Gentlemen's Department issued figures showing that as early as January there were 86,000 workers in the textile trade on short time and losing 16 hours a week each. We know that the situation has become very much worse and is getting still worse since that time. Since we last debated textile industry, only five weeks ago, the export situation has become much worse as more import cuts are beginning to affect the position and more and more markets are closing against our products. As for the slump in home trade, since that debate we have seen figures published by the Wholesale Textile Association showing that in February of this year home sales at the wholesale stage were 33 per cent. below what they were a year ago; and hon. Gentlemen opposite ask why we are having this debate tonight.
I wish to draw attention to the complete change in the situation from what we knew over the past six years. For four years it was my privilege to be dealing with the problems of Lancashire and Yorkshire and the textile industry. I recall the great recruitment drive in which hon. Members on both sides of the House were actively engaged. We remember how we brought over foreign workers. We remember the great drive we tried to carry on for re-deployment and for new methods in this long neglected industry.
One essential thing in trying to carry out this policy was that we had to ensure, almost at all costs, that there should be no unemployment in the cotton industry, because once unemployment began, even on the smallest scale, it was the end of all our hopes of re-deployment and recruitment, and so on. We found, what we had to expect, that in the mind of everyone in Lancashire there was a dread, a fear of a return to the mass unemployment and short-time working they had known in the 1920's and the 1930's.
I remember—I think it was in the summer of 1949, when I was on holiday; it was in the middle of August—reading in the Press of the danger of one mill closing for one week, or part of a mill closing. We moved heaven and earth to avoid that; the Cotton Board, I remember, were very active. Because we knew that if a single mill closed for a week it would defeat all hopes of what we were trying to do in Lancashire and Yorkshire. Now, since our last debate,

we hear that 570 mills, one-third of Lancashire's labour force, is affected by unemployment. What this will mean in terms of the permanent loss of key men in the industry; what it will mean in terms of the reversal of the trend of recruitment and the new force we had coming to the industry in the last six years, when the number of school-leavers entering the industry had again got back to the very high level; what this will mean in terms of the reversal of those trends it may take a generation to discover.
Yet, with all that unemployment, the Government economic policy, the Budget speech of the Chancellor and the Economic Survey are all based on gambling on increased production. What hope can they have of increased production when this unemployment is undermining one of our basic industries?

Mr. Harold Davies: And the Chinese market being closed.

Mr. Wilson: Another development since we last debated this has been the growth of widespread agreement in Lancashire with the suggestion pressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends and supported by the right hon. Gentleman that, while the removal of the Purchase Tax from textiles and clothing will not solve the problems of the industry, it is an essential condition. It is one of the steps that must be taken if we are going to do those things that are necessary.
We have seen the Cotton Board, a powerful body representing all sections of the industry, press the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of State for Economic Affairs, and, after the deputation had left, Sir Raymond Streat said that the delegation had put up the strongest case he had ever heard put up in the whole of his career. That is saying something, because Sir Raymond Streat has long experience. I have heard him put up strong cases, but this, he said, was the strongest he had ever heard put up. He said:
We are convinced that a healthy future for industry, and any chance of early recovery from its present difficulties, hang on a favourable answer to our proposition that the Purchase Tax and the 'D' Scheme must be abandoned for cotton and rayon.
When he was asked if he supported the idea of a tax free holiday, he said, "No, finish; set Lancashire free." Hon.


Gentlemen opposite were elected on a promise to set Lancashire free, but now we have this announcement.
Our view is supported by the President of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, who said that nothing short of the complete abolition of the tax will suffice in the present desperate situation. That was not overstating the case. The President of the National Chamber of Trade followed that up with a telegram to the Government, and then we had the telegram from the United Textile Factory Workers' Association of 7th April, pressing, among other necessary plans, the removal of the Purchase Tax completely from cotton and rayon textiles.
Then, we get the "Manchester Guardian" publishing a most moving and powerful leader entitled "A Bad Tax." I am bound to say that, in all the period in which I have had anything to do with the cotton trade in Lancashire, which, admittedly, was relatively short, though longer than that of most Members of the Front Bench opposite, I have never found such unanimity in Lancashire on anything and yet the Government are flying in the face of this weighty and unanimous advice.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) referred a few moments ago to the uncertainty in the industry, but, of course, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, made what was already an uncertain situation intolerably worse. He refused the proposals and the pressure for a removal of the Purchase Tax, and then he said that he was prepared to make concessions on individual items. Is there anything more likely to create uncertainty and create more delays? This is not just my own view, but the view of anyone in Lancashire who knows anything at all about the trade, and the right hon. Gentleman should have realised that it would be the inevitable result. The "Manchester Guardian" comments:
Anyone thinking of buying these goods will naturally hold up because they think they will get them more cheaply when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made up his mind.
We on this side are not so concerned with the troubles and difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman and two of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight. I have never seen three more unhappy men trying to explain the matter and controdicting

one another, and I think that what they were really trying to do was to avoid explaining it. I want to address myself to the Government Front Bench.
Have the Government got a plan for the textile industry? Have they got any ideas? If so, will they tell us what ideas they have got? We had hoped to get some idea from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in the textile debate, and the right hon. Gentleman made what was, for him, quite a serious speech, but it did not get anywhere. He referred to the difficulties caused by the vagaries of American stockpiling, and, if I had said that, there would have been trouble, but this was the President of the Board of Trade. He outlined a number of proposals which, when added up, came to very little more than monkeying about with the Raw Cotton Commission
There has been the Chancellor's plan for Government purchasing of textiles required for the re-armament programme. It was suggested on the other side tonight that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale was claiming the credit for our side when really it belonged to the party opposite. I think that is rather a sterile and arid discussion because, of course, the suggestion was made two years ago in "Labour Believes in Britain." We are delighted to see that the Government are learning a little from that document which they attacked so bitterly at the time.
What we were saying then, of course, was that these purchases should not be confined to re-armament, but that when an industry is facing difficult conditions there should be Government purchasing of anything required for the Government programme. I suggest to the Treasury Bench that what they are proposing here does not go far enough. Why not extend it to purchases for the National Health Service? Why do not they buy all the textile requirements for the National Health Service to help Lancashire? Why do not they place orders for textiles which might be distributed through the Assistance Board to those who need them? Why should we have old people needing textiles, on the one hand, and Lancashire workers unemployed on the others? That is obviously something they ought to have thought of already.
What I want to ask the Government tonight—and I really think the Board of


Trade should be replying to this debate or should at least have intervened, and I say that without any disrespect to the Financial Secretary—is what do they think is going to happen in the textile industry; on what are they pinning their hopes of an improvement in the position of Lancashire, because we have seen no signs of hope from them so far.
They can hold out very little hope regarding the export markets. We are seeing import cuts in Australia and South Africa, cuts which may perhaps involve a reduction of 80 per cent. in our textile exports to certain of these markets. We see import cuts starting in France, and even in Uruguay. The Government should realise that this game of cutting imports, as we warned them, is an infectious disease. Other people catch it, and then it has a serious effect on our exports.
Are the Government hoping for increased shipments of textiles to the dollar areas where, already, there is a slump in consumer goods and where, already, American business interests are lobbying for increased tariffs whenever they see the success of individual European export drives? There is a suggestion in the Press of further increases in tariffs, even in Canada. There is a feeling on this side of the House that the Government should really tackle this export problem. This year we are going to see a terrible slump in exports generally and in textiles in particular. They should long before this—and in any case should do it now—have called a Commonwealth trade conference, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I emphasise "trade," not solely finance. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Let us get down to working out some scheme for increasing our exports, particularly in the Commonwealth. It is quite plain to me—

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I am very sorry I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he was not very helpful with his last interruption.
It is plain, and the Treasury Bench really have some responsibility—there are enough of them from the different Departments—that the Government are quite clearly basing their plans for textiles on a slump in export markets. It is the Government's view that there is likely to be

a sharp reduction in the volume of British textile exports this year. I am sure the Secretary for Overseas Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will not deny that they are basing their plans on a sharp reduction of textile exports in 1952. It is not often we have the heavenly twins of the Board of Trade present at the same time, but now that we have them here I should like them to confirm that that is the position, and that they are basing all their plans on a slump in exports.
If that is so, and I see no disposition on their part to deny it, then we have really to turn our attention to the home market. I agree with them that it is likely that there will be something of a slump in exports this year unless a miracle happens or they do something about developing Commonwealth trade. My right hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth stressed the big change in Lancashire now that it is dependent on the home market. Last week-end Mr. Ernest Thornton, one of the biggest figures in the trade union movement in Lancashire, said this was the first slump in the cotton industry which was not due to lack of export markets but brought about by a slump in purchasing power at home.
The whole House knows that there is this slump. There are two main reasons for it. The first is the violent changes in raw material prices—of cotton to some extent and even more of wool—which have been considerably affected, as the President of the Board of Trade indicated, by American stockpiling last year.

Mr. John MacLeod: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he did when a deputation of Highland Members went to his Department to obtain a reduction in the Purchase Tax on Harris tweed when hundreds of people were leaving the Outer Islands and many are now unemployed?

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Member will keep that point until the relevant part of my speech. I shall deal with it and he will not be disappointed.
The second reason for the slump is the shortage of money on the part of the consuming public. It has been said several times in this House that when an average family has bought its food and paid its rent and coal bills there is


nothing left over for textiles. In this respect the Government are doing absolutely nothing to help the textile industry. In fact, all their more important economic measures are designed to make the situation in the textile industry all the worse.
What are the three items we have had from the Government in the matter of economic policy in the last few months? First, there has been the slashing of food subsidies. That will push food prices up even higher and there will be less margin with which to buy textiles. Secondly, the National Health Service charges are designed to leave ordinary people, when they have paid those charges, with less money to spend on textiles and clothing, which will mean a greater slump in Lancashire. Third, there has been the increase in the Bank rate and the financial squeeze which is creating a slump psychology and poverty, and making it more and more difficult for people to buy the products of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
This placing of orders is on far too small a scale to help Lancashire and Yorkshire. In fact, it will not be enough to absorb the additional unemployment which will result from the Australian import cuts, the effect of which we have not yet felt.

Captain Charles Waterhouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman deal with the question why his own Ministry placed orders for £35 million worth of textiles for the defence Forces outside the British Isles only nine months ago?

Mr. Wilson: That was very fully debated throughout a long night debate. At that time every attempt was made to place the orders in Lancashire, and Lancashire could not accept them because we then maintained full employment.
The first thing to do is to get goods moving into home consumption. The "Manchester Guardian" said a few weeks ago that the major trouble was the blocking of the trade pipelines. What is the Government doing to free them? The plain fact is that in this respect the Government are sacrificing the interests of the Lancashire and Yorkshire textile industry to the need of the Treasury for revenue. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer now in his place. I want to tell him that the Treasury must really show more elasticity in their operations

and for once be prepared to sacrifice their revenue calculations to the needs of industry and the welfare of 500,000 workers in Lancashire and Yorkshire. I would warn the Chancellor, if he does not know it already, that from the Treasury point of view the Government are going to lose, through loss of Income Tax, Profits Tax, unemployment benefit and Assistance Board payments, more than is involved in the whole of the revenue from Purchase Tax on these textile items.
I think it was Wordsworth who said:
… high Heaven rejects the lore Of nicely-calculated less or more.
I suggest that if high Heaven can afford to do so the Treasury can afford to do so, when so much is involved. There is so often a pull between the Treasury and some Departments which are concerned with trade. It was a fortunate thing that all the Labour Chancellors of the Exchequer and the Economic and Financial Secretaries who were in office in the concluding stages of the Labour Government had the benefit of Board of Trade experience and knowledge of the needs of industry.
Why do the Government not yield to the facts of the situation—to the unanimous views of Lancashire, which have been expressed with great vehemence from both sides of the House? The Chancellor was very incensed when my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) in the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, asked:
… does the right hon. Gentleman think that the level of unemployment in Lancashire and other areas is only just what he wants to secure the turnover to defence?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1952; Vol. 498, c. 2428.]
But it was a very fair question, as has been shown by the Economic Survey, which said:
We cannot afford to have labour and scarce materials engaged in producing goods for consumption at home when these resources could be used to increase exports. Some industries may have to contract in order that others can expand. Adjustments of this kind are always difficult and painful, and they must inevitably cause a temporary increase in unemployment while workers are changing jobs.
Are those words meant really to apply to the cotton industry, to wool and to rayon? If they are, one cannot understand why the Chancellor was so upset at my right hon. Friend's question.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): May I tell the right hon. Gentleman why I was so upset? It was because the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) deliberately tried to make out that the Government desired to see unemployment, which is quite apart from the truth. Our desire is to see that workers, if there is to be a change of employment, go into the industry which is most valuable to the economy of the country. We have no desire to see a major recession, which is a source of great human sorrow to us all.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Since something which I said seems to have started this argument, I should like to point out that at no time did I suggest that the Government wished to see unemployment for its own sake. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, I asked the perfectly serious question—how much transitional unemployment did the Government think there ought to be in this industry. I would do him this justice, that he did not wittingly get so incensed. I am sure that he must have supposed that I was attributing to him motives which, in fact, I was not; but I hope that he will address his mind to that question because, in the light of what my right hon. Friend has quoted from the Economic Survey, the House and the country are properly entitled to an answer.

Mr. Wilson: I trust that we shall get that answer from the Financial Secretary when he winds up the debate, because the words I have quoted are from the Economic Survey and they have reference to additional workers for defence being required and having to come mainly from consumer goods industries. Those words really spell the death warrant of the Lancashire cotton industry, unless the Government are telling us that they mean something other than they appear to do. The Government appear to be willing to sacrifice this great industry for the sake of revenue which they will not actually get.
If I may refer specifically to the Motion, by a happy coincidence, as has been pointed out, the Motion which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, is almost identical with the Motion placed on the Order Paper by the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), and some of his hon. Friends. There were 21 of them who signed it, now reduced to 20 because the hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has gone to assist the Prime Minister in the Ministry of Transport. The remaining 20 are a powerful combination of Privy Councillors and Parliamentary Private Secretaries; they are the cream of the Tory Party in the House of Commons; they represent a group of Members who spoke passionately and vehemently about Purchase Tax during the textile debate, and their Motion still remains on the Order Paper.
Yet, tonight, they ungratefully and ungraciously spurn our generous offer to join them in a bi-partisan effort to remove the blight of Purchase Tax from our textile and clothing industries, and have produced this milk and water Amendment. We are bound to ask what has happened. It is not that the textile industry has improved in these past five weeks. We all know that its situation has grown immeasurably worse, and that the need for removal of the tax is clearer now than it was then.
I suggest that the reason for the change in the attitude of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is not any developments in Lancashire, but developments in a Committee room upstairs just before Easter. They forgot all about their brave words in their Motion when they found themselves faced with the brutal discipline of the Tory Party. Or is it, perhaps, that the Prime Minister, with his eloquence and his powers of persuasion, at that meeting, faced with this revolt, lured hon. Gentlemen into acquiescing in the ruin of the cotton industry as part of a rather squalid party deal in which he bowed to their pressure and promised to introduce legislation to ruin the steel industry and the transport industry as well? Is that what happened? Then, last night for some reason they were embarrassed by our Motion, and one can visualise—one almost saw—the flurry and scurry of Parliamentary Private Secretaries rushing to the Chancellor and asking him if he could accept this Motion, could they go a little bit further, and so on.
The right hon. Gentleman referred tonight to his sincerity. May I say that we all accept, coming from him, his


statement about his sincerity. He has a chance tonight to show that sincerity, because unless the Financial Secretary is a great deal more forthcoming than the Chancellor was we shall obviously have to contest this issue in the Division Lobbies. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman and to other hon. Gentlemen opposite to show that Lancashire and Yorkshire Members of Parliament, particularly, are united in defence of their interests.

Mr. Assheton: The right hon. Gentleman has sadly misled the House. The terms of the Motion which I put on the Order Paper the other day are terms which I would have been prepared to vote for tonight. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman has put down a quite different Motion, and I have therefore been obliged to amend my original Motion to meet the situation.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman tells us he was prepared to vote for his original Motion, but he was not prepared to vote for his letter to "The Times." We can understand his divided loyalty.
I appeal to the House quite seriously to rise above party and these niggardly Treasury calculations, and to realise what is at stake. What is at stake is the future of Lancashire, of Yorkshire, and of the textile industries throughout the country. My right hon. Friend has referred to these industries and to the part they played in peace and in war. We are all aware of what these industries have done. We know that if this industry goes under now we shall lose a great national asset.
When I refer to an asset, I am not talking about the value of the mills and the machinery, I am not talking even solely of the quality of the craftsmanship of the people in these industries, I am talking more of the indefinable virtues which make up the textile community; that spirit which in the greatest disaster Lancashire ever had to face, the American Civil War, and the indescribable misery and poverty which that brought on the people of Lancashire, kept their faith in freedom alive.
If it had not been for the steadfastness of Lancashire in those years, the United States of America, as we know

that country today, could not have existed. Now we find Lancashire once again facing depression, but this time there is action which the Government can take, and failing the Government the House can insist is taken before it is too late.

9.31 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): This has been in several ways a somewhat unusual debate. One unusual feature is that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and myself owe a common apology to certain gentlemen in the University of Cambridge where, at almost this identical hour, we should have been debating with each other.

Mr. H. Wilson: Tell them what is the Motion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I resist the temptation, which the right hon. Gentleman always indulges in, to lure me out of order. The second agreeable feature has been the return to this House of the right hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson). I hope that he will allow me to say, on behalf of those who are his friends in everything except the strict political sense and who sit on this side of the House, how glad we are to see him back here in such apparent vigour. We hope that means that his health is really restored and that we shall see him at that Box many times in the future.
The Motion which the House is debating relates solely to taxation, and it is a somewhat unusual feature of this debate that the House should be debating taxation on the very eve of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. I would in that context remind the right hon. Member for Huyton that it is taxation and solely taxation which is the subject matter of the Motion which his hon. and right hon. Friends have put on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman very courteously suggested that the reply to this debate should have fallen on one of my hon. or right hon. Friends who are Ministers at the Board of Trade. May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the choice of subject lay in the hands of his own hon. and right hon. Friends and that when they decided, for whatever reason, to table a Motion relating solely to the issue of a particular tax, then the duty falls upon a Treasury Minister to reply.
The right hon. Member for Huyton made many general comments upon the textile industry. He went a considerable distance from the narrow confines of this Motion. I must remind him that if he and his hon. Friends had wanted a general debate on the textile industry, the day was theirs and they could have had it. They did not so choose. They chose, for reasons which, I think, are tolerably clear to most hon. Members and which indeed were most agreeably admitted by the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) in moving the Motion, for a debate on this particular subject.
The debate has, all the same, had the advantage of making clear, if indeed it were necessary to make it clear, the very deep concern which is felt on both sides of the House as to the condition and future of this great industry. I do not dissent from—indeed, I have strong family reasons for agreeing with—some of the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the contribution which this industry and those who have worked in it have made to our national progress and development.
I believe that it is no doubt some advantage that the concern which we all feel about this industry should have been so clearly indicated tonight, because that will convey to those concerned with the direct operation of the industry some degree of reassurance. Obviously this Government—obviously, any Government—must from every point of view, human and fiscal, be very concerned when one of the major industries of the country suffers a recession of this character.
It is all the more important, surely, that the remedies which are to be prescribed should be the right remedies. There has been rather a tendency outside the House for people to argue in this way: "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, let us do it." This House must, of course, proceed on the basis not merely of wishing and willing that effective action be taken, but of securing and ensuring that the action taken really is the right action.
It would be rather cruel to those who are struggling with the difficult situation of the industry to raise their hopes with a suggestion that a certain measure would produce good results for them, if, on

analysis and on experience, that measure did not produce those results. It really is important that we should be quite sure in discussing the various measures which can be taken that those measures—or indeed the degree in which they are taken—are really the right ones and not merely the offspring of an unthoughtful desire to help.
If we are to be quite clear as to what we ought to do, we must be equally clear about the background of the situation. Two facts seem to me to bear very strongly on that point. In the first place, as my right hon. Friend said on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, this is not a problem which is confined to this country. The recession in the textile industry is common to all the major textile industries of the world, whatever their system of taxation may be.
It may interest the House to know that in the United States of America employment in the textile industry has fallen by 77,000 since this time last year. The Japanese yarn output for March was 17½ per cent. below that for February. Employment in France has fallen by 10,000, in her much smaller textile industry. German textile sales were 18 per cent. down last month compared with the previous month, and unemployment in the Austrian textile industry has doubled. That shows that this is a common problem and that it is perhaps a little deeper than can be completely coped with merely by domestic measures and expediences.
There is also the fact—not as one might have thought when listening to some of the speeches today—that this is not a sudden bolt from the blue which has fallen upon both the Lancashire textile trade, which has been mentioned, and also the Yorkshire textile trade, which has not. I was born in that county, and I rather resented that it had received no mention so far as I could recall in the course of our debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yorkshire was mentioned."] I apologise if one fellow-Yorkshireman was able to state its point of view.
The tendency in the industry has been clearly apparent since last summer. I think it was the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) who sought to indicate that there had been no signs of unemployment until the change of Government. If the hon. Member will look at the statistics which are available, he will see that unemployment


in the textile industry actually doubled between the middle of September and the middle of October last year. This is not an immediately new situation. It is perhaps a more difficult and a more alarming problem for that very reason. It is not one of those sudden changes which may come as suddenly as they go. It has been a clearly developed tendency at least since late last summer.

Mr. Lee: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that what unemployment there was in textiles during the last few months that we were in power was in the Yorkshire wool industry, and that there were a considerable number of unfilled vacancies in the Lancashire cotton industry? Would he not also agree that the fact that the cotton industry could not take the contracts which went abroad shows that there was no threat of large-scale unemployment at that time?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman into the reason why the Government of which he was a supporter placed these contracts abroad. My only point in referring to it was that, if we would fairly consider this problem, we must not consider it as a sudden cataclysm which has fallen upon the northern counties and upon the textile trade, because it is not confined to Lancashire and Yorkshire and has steadily developed since last summer.
The only remedy prescribed in the Opposition Motion is that we should consider removing the Purchase Tax from textiles. Many of the arguments which supported the Motion, notably that of the hon. Member for Rossendale, would be more appropriate if addressed to the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) subsequently moved. The hon. Member for Rossendale's Motion suggested the removal of Purchase Tax as the sole remedy, but he made, as he always does, useful and constructive suggestions which go outside the Purchase Tax field. I am sure the House will not wish to be forced into taking the view put forward by the Opposition that the removal of the Purchase Tax is the only matter which ought to be considered in this connection.
I was very interested when the hon. Member for Rossendale told us what the Opposition meant by the removal of

Purchase Tax. It was not a tax holiday. The hon. Member seems to have dismissed that somewhat contemptuously. Nor was it to be a permanent removal of tax, but a removal to some unspecified date, when it would be restored. I do not think I have misrepresented the hon. Member. But when the hon. Member puts that forward he really is not entitled, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton did, to claim that he is putting forward the unanimous opinion of the trades and industries concerned, because those trades and industries have made it clear that their view is that such a temporary removal of Purchase Tax would not seriously assist in dealing with the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman, if he is urging a temporary removal of tax, is not entitled to call in aid the unanimous voice, as I think he put it, of Lancashire on this issue. The issue is, what do the Opposition mean on this point? They mean apparently some period at the end of which the tax will be restored. That course seems to me to have clear disadvantages.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe was absolutely right when he said that the real need in this connection is certainty, and there is a great risk that if the Tax is temporarily removed and is to be restored at some unspecified date later on we may simply repeat the process which this industry has so recently experienced, the process of over-buying followed by the clogging of the machinery of distribution and then by a similar recession. We would put the industry in a very difficult position of uncertainty as to the future. I was interested to get it from hon. Gentlemen opposite that the proposal put forward is for some indefinite, but not permanent, period of removal.
The real question is whether this is, temporary or permanent, the major remedy for this problem, as would appear from the Motion before us. I would like to look at the facts, so that the House will be in a position to judge whether the removal of Purchase Tax would necessarily provide a solution by itself. The hon. Gentleman's party has put down a Motion demanding its removal, and nothing else. The right hon. Member for Huyton has threatened that the hon. Gentleman's party will vote for this proposal


and nothing else. In the circumstances, that party cannot run away from the argument that the removal, or the modification, of Purchase Tax is not necessarily the complete solution.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that the word used in the Motion is "alleviate" and not "permanently cure."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do, and I also appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not think fit to put in his Motion one other proposal, temporary or permanent. If he has other proposals to put forward he could, as my hon. Friends have done, have put them forward in the body of the Motion. He must not now take it to heart if I assume that the Opposition mean what they say when they put a Motion on the Paper in these terms.
I will analyse the matter rather further, because this may be of help to the House as showing how the tax operates in this industry. There are large sections of the industry which the tax does not fall upon at all, such as exports, contracts for Government Departments, children's clothing, which is by statute exempt, and industrial cloths, which are by statute exempt. A very substantial proportion, in the order of 40 per cent. by volume, of this industry is not even within the scheme of the tax at all. Some 60 per cent. is perhaps within the scheme, but, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate, it is the essence of the D scheme that the tax only falls upon half of the total volume.
Therefore, one comes to the position that in point of fact something of the order of 70 per cent. of the output of the textile industry does not carry Purchase Tax at all. That being so, no manipulation, adjustment or variation of the tax can be held to be responsible for the condition of that part of the industry nor, unfortunately, can any such variation of Purchase Tax alleviate its present troubles. One really would not have thought, listening to speeches from the benches opposite, that hon. Members were discussing an industry very nearly three-quarters of the output of which does not, under the present scheme, pay the tax at all.
I am not seeking to dispute that the tax may, in the remaining section, have some effect; but if one is to have the matter

in proportion it is essential to appreciate that one is dealing with an industry of which 70 per cent. is outside the payment of the tax.

Mr. W. A. Burke: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry but I have not time. It is essential to remember that in this position it would be misleading to suggest that tax variations would seriously assist a large part of the industry. It is also significant, perhaps, that the shops at the moment contain a large number of the old top-class utility goods which, of course, are still tax free, and that those goods are not being disposed of with any rapidity. If hon. Gentlemen opposite are right in their theory, if they think the industry would be greatly helped by putting the successors of those goods in the shops in the same position as those goods themselves now are, it is curious that those goods are, unfortunately, not disappearing from the shops with any speed.
I am not for one moment disputing that over the 30 per cent. of the industry the tax may have some effect, though, there again, even within that 30 per cent., hon. Members will appreciate that under the D scheme the tax is quite small at the point at which it first arises, and it is only on the final, say, 10 per cent. of the total output, of the really high-class or luxury-class, that the tax has an appreciable effect on price.
But having said that, may I, in reply particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, say this. We are about to enter upon the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. It is the intention of the Government to listen carefully to the arguments which are put forward from both sides of the Committee during the discussions on the relevant Clauses and Schedules of the Finance Bill. The Government have not got closed minds on this subject. We are prepared to listen to the arguments put forward and to see whether, as the result of those arguments, it becomes apparent that in the limited sphere to which I have referred something can be done to assist the industry.
However, we have not waited for that. As the House is aware, we have acted with considerable speed in the placing of orders. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned at Blackburn on


Friday the actual placing of a number of orders of the value of £1,800,000. Today tenders are being offered in Manchester for eight-and-a-half million yards of denim, eight-and-a-half million yards of drill and one-and-a-half million of broadcloth—orders totalling in value something in the nature of £3¾ million. Another £¾ million worth of orders will be tendered for in the next week, and in view of the urgency of the matter, the normal time for tender has been reduced.
We have not forgotten the other side of the industry, the wool side. Tenders for 600,000 blankets are being offered this week against the normal programme, plus 880,000 added as part of the proposals of my right hon. Friend. Next week tenders will be offered for not less than 1½ million yards of cloth overcoating at a value of £¾ million and, towards the end of May, for six million yards of Angola shirting to a value of £1¼ million.
Those are the orders placed by the Ministry of Supply. The Admiralty are placing further orders on their own behalf and we believe that those orders, deliberately placed in those towns and districts where the situation is worst, will be a welcome contribution both to the wellbeing of the industry and to the maintenance of employment in those areas. I believe they will be so regarded by persons of all political views in the areas concerned. That should convince the House that we mean business in this matter. The House should also realise that it is a solid contribution towards dealing with this problem, and it is a contribution whose effects can be precisely measured. In that way it contrasts perhaps with the proposal limited to Purchase Tax in the Motion.
It is a matter to some extent of speculation how far we assist the producer by the removal of Purchase Tax. Let me take an example. Suppose we remove the tax of, say, 1s. on a shirt. The Exchequer loses that 1s., but it does not necessarily follow that the producer obtains that 1s. It does not necessarily follow that the purchaser is so pleased at not having to pay the tax that he buys a second shirt. It may well be—and here we are in the realms of pure speculation—that he spends that 1s. on some other agreeable purpose, but without benefit of any sort or kind to the textile industry.
But the placing of these orders, as a direct effect, secures that employment is given in places deliberately selected, where the need is greatest, and that the employment is given—

Mr. Burke: How much?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend gave the figures in winding up on 7th April and, no doubt, the hon. Member is familiar with them. That employment is directly given, and effectively given, in that way. It is always possible, like Oliver Twist, to suggest that there could be more, and with a great re-armament programme in process it is obvious that there will be considerable needs for textiles. That seems to us to be of some assistance—

Mr. James Carmichael: Are any orders coming to Scotland?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —but I stress that, in saying that, I am not seeking to indicate other than that on the point of Purchase Tax, which has been discussed tonight, we shall give during the course of the debate on the Finance Bill—

Mr. Carmichael: What about Scotland?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —the fullest and most careful consideration to the points that are put, whether they affect England or Scotland.
The House will realise, I am sure, that Purchase Tax is a problem which goes beyond the textile industry, that other commodities and articles are concerned, and that their position will, equally, have to be taken into account. But the undertaking I have given, of careful consideration of proposals as they come forward during the debate, indicates that our minds are open on this question.

The only thing I need add is this.

Mr. A. C. Manuel: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is perfectly clear—

Mr. Manuel: We would like to know what is happening to Scotland.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: —that the problems of the textile industry will not be solved by one expedient alone. For that


reason the Amendment, which was moved in such an effective way by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe, gives a truer picture of the right way to handle this situation than does the narrow Motion moved from the Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Herbert W. Bowden: rose in his place, and claimed

to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 269.

Division No. 106.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Finch, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Adams, Richard
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Albu, A. H.
Follick, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Forman, J. C.
Manuel, A. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Mayhew, C. P.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.


Baird, J.
Gibson, C. W.
Messer, F.


Balfour, A.
Glanville, James
Mikardo, Ian


Bartley, P.
Gooch, E. G.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Monslow, W.


Bence, C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Moody, A. S.


Benn, Wedgwood
Greaten, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, David (nether Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moyle, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mulley, F. W.


Boardman, H.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Murray, J. D.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Bowden, H. W.
Hannan, W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Han P. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Hardy, E. A.
O'Brien, T.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hargreaves, A.
Oldfield, W. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Oliver, G. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hastings, S.
Orbach, M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hayman, F. H.
Oswald, T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Padley, W. E.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paget, R. T.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, L. J.
Hobson, C. R.
Pannell, Charles


Carmichael, J.
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Parker, J.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J. H.
Paton, J.


Chapman, W. D.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Pearson, A.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Poole, C. C.


Coldrick, W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.


Collick, P. H.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Cook, T. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Proctor, W. T.


Cove, W. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, B.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Keenan, W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Kenyon, C.
Ross, William


Deer, G.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)


Delargy, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
McInnes, J.
Steele, T.


Ewart, R.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)




Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Viant, S. P.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Swingler, S. T.
Wallace, H. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Thomas, David (Aberdare)
West, D. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wyatt, W. L.


Timmons, J.
Wigg, George
Yates, V. F.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A B.



Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Royle and Mr. Holmes.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Alport, C. J. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Drewe, C.
Lambton, Viscount


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Duthie, W. S.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Erroll, F. J.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Fell, A.
Linstead, H. N.


Baker, P. A. D.
Finlay, Graeme
Llewellyn, D. T.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Banks, Col. C.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Barber, A. P. L.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Low, A. R. W.


Barlow, Sir John
Fort, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Baxter, A. B.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCallum, Major D.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Gage, C. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollak)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Birch, Nigel
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Black, C. W.
Gough, C. F. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gower, H. R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bossom, A. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Bowen, E. R.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Grimond, J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Grimston, Han. John (St. Albans)
Marples, A. E.


Braine, B. R.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harden, J. F. E.
Maude, Angus


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Brig F.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir John


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Molson, A. H. E.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bullard, D. G.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Burden, F. F. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Heath, Edward
Nicholls, Harmar


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Carson, Hon. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Channon, H.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Clunie, J.
Hollis, M. C.
Odey, G. W.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim N.)


Cole, Norman
Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Hope, Lord John
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hopkinson, Henry
Osborne, C.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Horobin, I. M.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Crouch, R. F.
Hulbert, Wing Comdr. N. J.
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Hurd, A. R.
Powell, J. Enoch


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Prior-Palmer, Big. O. L.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Profumo, J. D.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jenkins, R. C. D. (Dulwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, R.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Redmayne, E.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Kaberry, D.
Renton, D. L. M.


Donner, P. W.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)







Robertson, Sir David
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Roper, Sir Harold
Stevens, G. P.
Vesper, D. F.


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Wade, D. W.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Storey, S.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Studholme, H. G.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Scott, R. Donald
Summers, G. S.
Watkinson, H. A.


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wellwood, W.


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Wills, G.


Snadden, W. McN.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
York, C.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John



Speir, R. M.
Turner, H. F. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Turton, R. H.
Brigadier Mackeson and




Mr. Butcher.


Question put, and agreed to.

Proposed words there added.

Resolved,
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to consider removing, reducing or amending the Purchase Tax on textiles and to take any measures, including acceleration of orders for textile goods, in order to alleviate the rising unemployment in this industry.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (INCREASED SCALES)

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. R. H. Turton): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th April, be approved.
I am asking the House to approve the Draft National Assistance Regulations which are designed to improve materially the standard of living of over two million people. The scale rates under the National Assistance Act have been increased on two previous occasions, the last as recently as last September. As on those occasions, the reason for the increase is the fall in the value of money.
On this occasion, the Board are responding to the invitation made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech of 11th March, when he said that the Board would have to take into account his proposal to lower the food subsidy ceiling to £250 million. The estimated effect of this proposal is 1s. 2½d. per head per week. In addition, there is a figure of 3½d. per head per week in

respect of other food price increases, including increases resulting from the agricultural price review announced in the House of Commons last week.
The scales suggested take into account these factors and also the considerable rise in the cost of living that has taken place since the Regulations introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill) in June, 1951, came into operation.
In this connection, I would remind the House that these scale rates are supplemented by a rent allowance, and, therefore, in dealing with the impact of the cost of living, it is not the all-item index that is relevant, but the specific indices for food, clothing, fuel and light and household goods. It is the expectation of the Board and of my right hon. Friend that the scales laid down in these Regulations will provide a fair and reasonable standard of living, not merely at present, but for a considerable period of time in the future. The unfortunate factor which we have to bear in mind is that it is only as recently as eight months ago when the last Regulations were introduced.
When those Regulations were introduced last June, the House approved an increase in the ordinary scale for a single householder by 4s. a week from 26s. to 30s. The present Regulations propose a further increase of 5s. from 30s. to 35s. The rate for the married couple is raised to 59s.; in other words, the three-to-five ratio is broadly being maintained. In fact, it is being rounded off to the nearest shilling, giving the extra addition of the 8d. involved to the married couple. The rates for dependent children are being increased by 2s. 6d., 2s. and 1s. 6d. according to their age.
Besides the ordinary scale, there is a special scale which applies to blind persons and to certain persons suffering from tuberculosis. The number of blind persons at present benefiting from this special scale is about 50,000, and the number of tuberculous persons benefiting from this special scale is in the region of 35,000. The most important rates in the special scale were fixed in 1948 to be 15s. above the corresponding rates in the ordinary scale. When the ordinary scale rates were increased in 1950 and 1951, blind and tuberculous persons were given the same increases as those on the ordinary scale, so that the margin was maintained at 15s.
Last year in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) pressed that that margin of 15s. should be increased. At that time the right hon. Lady was unable to do so, but, on further consideration, we have in these Regulations been able to increase that margin from 15s. to 18s. Thus, a single blind person who has been having his income made up to 45s. plus rent as against the 30s. plus rent on the ordinary scale, will now have his income made up to 53s. plus rent as against 35s. plus rent on the ordinary scale.
The House will notice that Regulation 3, which deals with people living in accommodation provided by or by arrangement with local authorities under Part III of the National Assistance Act, is on new lines, and perhaps calls for a few words of explanation. The intention of the Regulation in its present form is to get Parliamentary approval in principle for a method of dealing with these cases which the Board has in practice adopted since 1948 when the payment of assistance to cases in these homes first started.
As hon. Members know, it is for the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe under quite separate powers the minimum charge which a local authority must make for a person living in this kind of accommodation and also the amount which he should be allowed for small personal requirements—what is known as a pocket money allowance. Hon. Members will appreciate that the Regulations about charges and pocket money allowances apply to a large number of people who

are not in receipt of assistance at all. They apply, for instance, to people drawing National Insurance pensions. But, in so far as people living in this kind of accommodation have not got resources of their own, the National Assistance Board have to provide them with an allowance equal to the sum of the minimum charge and the pocket money allowance.
When the question first arose in 1948, it was known that the amounts that the Ministers of Health would prescribe for this purpose were going to be 21s. and 5s., respectively. The Assistance Regulations, therefore, prescribe a sum of 26s. This method was, it is true, simple, but it had the disadvantage that if at any time the Health Ministers decided to change the pocket money allowance or the minimum charge, a formal amendment of the Assistance Regulations became necessary before the residents dependent on assistance received the benefit of the change.
In fact, there has been a certain amount of doubt whether the allowance for pocket money in these cases is appropriate in present circumstances and the Health Ministers, as a result of inquiries they are making, may decide to improve it. The present Regulations, therefore, provide, instead of a fixed amount which might have had to be altered, a formula which makes it possible to alter the allowances in these cases without fresh Regulations should the amounts prescribed by the Health Ministers be changed.
The number of persons at present affected by these Regulations is about 20,000. In addition, there are 50,000 persons on National Assistance paying an inclusive sum for board and lodging to whom the ordinary scale rates cannot be applied. In those cases the Board's officers use discretionary powers to put the boarder in a position to meet his board and lodging charge and have a reasonable amount left for personal expenses. These discretionary powers extend over the whole field of the Board's activities and will not be impaired in any way by the new Regulations. My information is that at present over 500,000 of the 1,500,000 allowances are now being increased by the exercise of these powers to meet special expenses.
Among old people the proportion of the allowance so increased is at present


over a half. I remember that when the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West, introduced the previous Regulations she mentioned that these discretionary powers were costing at that time £5 million. It will interest her to know that the cost of these special allowances is now approaching £6 million.
I hope that the House will not delay in any way in giving approval to these Regulations, as the matter is urgent. We are anxious to bring these Regulations into force on 16th June, which is six weeks from next Monday. This will throw on the Board's officers a great load of administrative work, and it is in fact a shorter period than was allowed last year between the approval of the Regulations and the date of operation.
The Board's officers will do all the work necessary to put these Regulations into operation. There will be no need for people drawing assistance to take any action to obtain the assistance due to them. Where assistance is paid by order book the Board will issue an additional book for the extra amount due, and they expect to be able to do this in nearly all the cases before 16th June. In the exceptional case where that is not possible the arrears will be paid back to that date.
The matter is complicated because at a later stage more than two-thirds of the allowances will need to be adjusted again when family allowances and retirement pensions and other insurance benefits are increased under the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill published last week. The Board will not be in a position to provide for these adjustments until the House has passed that Bill into law and full details have been settled. But in the communications they are sending with the additional order books they are including, where appropriate, an intimation that the amount of the assistance will have to be reduced when the family allowance, pension or benefit is increased. This further operation, however, will not reduce the total income below the figure to which it is now increased by the Regulations.
The estimated cost of the new scale is £25 million in a full year. In the current year about three-quarters of the amount will be required, over and above the £77,500,000 provided in the Estimates that the House has before it. But

the increase will be offset to a material extent by the effect of increases in insurance benefits and family allowances which, as I have mentioned, will reduce the sums the Board have to pay by way of supplementation. I commend these Regulations to the House. However much we may disagree in our approach to certain problems in politics, there is, I know, on all sides of the House a unanimous wish to see that those affected by these Regulations, who may well be described as the casualties in the battle of life, should be treated with sympathy and all the generosity which, in our circumstances, we can afford.

10.26 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I think I am speaking for my hon. Friends behind me when I say that we welcome any increase in the scales for those who are, through misfortune, dependent upon National Assistance; but I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions. He said, quite rightly, that in arriving at these new scales it was necessary to take into account the increase in the cost of living since the last scales were introduced—in September, 1952—together with the increase in the cost of living up to and beyond the coming into operation of the new scale. I think the House understands the reason for that; that for administrative reasons it is impracticable to change the scales too frequently and therefore it is customary to err on the generous side in order to try to assess what would be the increase in the cost of living in the coming months.
We on this side of the House are a little alarmed at the impending increases in the cost of rationed food, and the significant hints that while these increases in price will take place there will be a de-rationing of other foods. I can say no more than that we feel that there have been hints in this direction. The synchronisation of these statements cannot fail to fill us with a certain apprehension, because if this is to come about it will mean that the prices of certain rationed foods will increase, consumption will drop and, in consequence, de-rationing will be possible.
If this is the sequence of events, the very poorest in the country—and I include those on National Assistance—will be compelled to go without rationed foods. I want to know if the Minister is


satisfied that the new scales which he has introduced tonight will meet the new prices of rationed foods. I have sought at Question time to elicit this information from the Minister—who, I see, is sitting in his place tonight—and he has been a little elusive. He was a little querulous, I thought, on Monday. I was not trying to be difficult or to harry him. We do not do that kind of thing on this side of the House. I was trying, quite kindly and with a certain sympathy and understanding—because I have been in his position—to get an assurance from him that the new scales would meet these increases.
Some weeks ago I also asked him—and I think it was a fair question—whether he would consider meeting the Minister of Food with a view to synchronising the increase in price of rationed foods and the new scales. I think that that was a question which was quite practical, but I have still not had an answer. I should like to know tonight, if possible, whether the increase in the price of rationed foods is coming into operation before or after 16th June. That is the kind of thing the people would like to know. I have asked that question on various occasions.
I think it was last Monday that the Minister of National Insurance retorted that the Labour Government was responsible for doing all kinds of things; but he must remember that the Labour Party, when in power, never reduced the food subsidies. They never considered reducing the food subsidies. The Minister need not raise his eyebrows. The food subsidies remained, and it was only when the present Government was returned that these reductions were introduced. Therefore, I say he is in a different position. He cannot very well ride away by saying that the Labour Party did different things when they were in office. So perhaps he could answer that very important question tonight.
The main weakness which I see in these calculations is that the retail price index is not a representative one for people on National Assistance. I am not quite sure from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he suggested that the new scales are related to a different kind of index or whether they are related to the retail price index.

Mr. Turton: I was explaining to the House that we were not using the all-item index. As there is a rent allowance

in addition to the ordinary scale, it would be inappropriate to use the all-item index, as in fact was used in the debate last July by the former Parliamentary Secretary. What we do take into account, amongst other factors, are the food, clothing, household and fuel and light items in the Ministry of Labour retail price index.

Dr. Summerskill: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the retail price index, that is what I am going to relate my remarks to. I am sure he will agree that household goods can cover a wide variety of items. Amongst the most important items in the budgets of recipients of National Assistance are, first, food and then fuel. Both these items, particularly food, are increasing in price, and will increase rather faster than the overall cost of living index. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me so far.

Mr. Turton: indicated assent.

Dr. Summerskill: If that is so, this allowance is an apparent gain, but if the food and fuel costs increase more quickly than the overall cost of living index, this apparent increase will be substantially greater. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a valid argument. If he had said to me that he has only taken into account such things as food, fuel and rent, the position would be different, but he has admitted that he is taking into account all those items which are used in the household.
I take it that these figures are related to the price index figures up to the beginning of March. I have a list of goods which have increased in price from the time of the General Election up to March, and I think there are something like 60 items in it. Assuming that those on National Assistance only have the bare essentials of life, a considerable number of these goods will be found in the list, and those which are in the list which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned will be taken into account.
But I have a list of 53 more which have been increased up to April, and presumably, for actuarial reasons, the Minister has not been able to base his rate on the latest figures. He has only had to assume—and I quite understand this—quite generally what the increase in prices will be. All this tends to confirm our suspicions that these scales tonight may


not meet the increased prices which will come about in the next few months, and I would welcome some further reassurance on that point.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I understand that this includes articles of household clothing as well, a number of which, as the right hon. Lady knows, are coming down in price, and have come down quite recently. They must be set against the figures which she has given.

Dr. Summerskill: If they come down I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I would welcome it. I appreciate the difficult position in which the Parliamentary Secretary finds himself. All we want is some assurance that we shall not find in two months, or in June, that the scales are entirely inadequate. That would be a waste of time, and it would be costly for the Minister to have to introduce new scales.
Now I come to discretionary powers. I am pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary that the amount of money spent on discretionary services can be increased. He explained that in the memorandum. We all know the real safeguard against any undue suffering by a family or an individual is to be found in the discretionary powers possessed by officials. I have been told by my hon. Friends that for the most part the officials exercise these powers very wisely. Here and there an hon. Gentleman feels they may be more than generous. For my own part, in my constituency the officials handle what is a delicate matter excellently.
I want to put this point to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible to give a coal allowance to those who live in cold or damp rooms, or to families where there is cause for the allowance. Since the General Election the price of coal has increased by an average of 5s. a ton throughout the whole country. In London it has risen by 7s. 8d., in Birmingham by 5s. 11d., in Manchester by 6s., in Leeds by 5s. 10d., in Bristol by 7s. 1d. and in Exeter by 8s. 3d. I have not to remind the House that fares have increased, and yesterday's debate did not clarify the issue. It seems that the increases in fares which have been suspended will be put into operation after the borough elections.
Having regard to all this, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether these officials can exercise their discretion in respect of hospital fares—that is fares incurred by patients who have to go to hospital? I should also like to ask him if he will give an instruction to officials to exercise wider discretion in respect of coal and fares. He does not have to introduce new Regulations. He has all the necessary powers.
The other thing I want to raise concerns the disparity between insurance and assistance rates, and we shall be able to discuss this when the National Insurance Bill is introduced. I am not going to criticise this: I am merely going to comment on it. We are departing from the principle that pensions should be related to subsistence. We are asking that all insurance beneficiaries under the scheme should apply, if necessary, for assistance to supplement their pensions. In consequence, it is even more important that the new National Assistance rates should be brought to the notice of all National Insurance beneficiaries.
When one thinks today of the increases in prices and of the difficulties which in the next few months will be faced by all those who draw unemployment or sickness benefits, or old age pensions, before the new scales come into operation in September, it seems that the Minister should use all the media open to him to give wide publicity to these new scales. I deplore the fact that all the splendid work by the Ministry in the last few years with a view to giving assistance without undue publicity has been vitiated by the new Health Bill. I am sorry the Minister did not do something about that. He knows that in the Ministry of National Insurance today they are very proud of the fact that an individual in need of assistance need not disclose his poverty publicly.
We have seen to it that Post Offices are supplied with simple forms of application which can be obtained by applicants for assistance, and we have made it known that, if someone is still nervous or shy about applying, an official will call at their home. We did this to relieve dire poverty in the country, and when I was at that Box I used to explain week after week what the arrangements were. I thought that both sides of the House then approved of this approach to those who were too proud to come forward.
I am surprised at having to tell the Minister that he has allowed a Bill to go through which will, to a certain extent, reverse our policy when the Health Bill operates. The Minister did not deny this when I explained to the House on Second Reading that an individual will disclose his poverty in the chemist's shop when he asks for a receipt for his prescription. He knows that is the procedure, and it is no use saying it is untrue.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the right hon. Lady permit me? In the first place, the provisions made for National Assistance under the National Health Service Bill this year are identical word for word with the provisions in last year's Bill. When the right hon. Lady refers to the prescription in the chemist's shop, that is not in this year's Bill. The power to charge through National Assistance is in the Bill she supported and voted for a year ago.

Dr. Summerskill: When I gave way I thought the hon. Gentleman had some new point. He has repeated that so often in the last few days that I know it off by heart. The fact was that the Labour Government, having examined the operation of this scheme, decided that this part would be unworkable and would not be fair. That is why we rejected it, and it is quite stupid for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Labour Party also operated it. Of course they did not. He is supporting a Bill on which the Guillotine is going to fall for the last stage on Thursday.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: rose—

Dr. Summerskill: I am not going to give way. The two hon. Gentlemen, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, have been doing this for such a long time and have repeated the same phrases so often that I know the question they are going to ask.
I am sorry the Minister is not following a policy of which he should be very proud in the Ministry of National Insurance, which protects these people who do not want to reveal their poverty, and that that policy is being reversed. I hope he will have a word with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health with a view, at the last moment, to persuading him not to do it.
Obviously, we only want to improve the Regulations, and the last thing we would do would be to criticise the administration. I want to thank all those officials who serve the National Assistance Board. They have a very difficult function. The applicants they see every day may not receive that sum of money they would like. We all know that. Despite that, the officials do their work in a tactful and courteous manner, and I should like it to go out from the House that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, appreciate their work.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The House always listens with very great interest to the right hon. Lady the Member for Fulham, West (Dr. Summerskill), and we are sorry that she should make what seemed to me to be a destructive, rather than a constructive, contribution. The right hon. Lady, for instance, said that her party did not cut the food subsidies. Of course, she knows perfectly well that from the point of view of the old age pensioner, if one raises the price of food that is exactly the same thing, even though it is done in order to keep the food subsidies at a certain level. That is simply a quibble, and the old people and those in receipt of National Assistance will not take it very well.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady said that the basis of the new rates was not realistic. I am surprised that she should cast any doubts in the country about the correctness of the rates of National Assistance, because she knows—and I know that she knows—perfectly well that these rates are based on the same basis as when she was in office, and that that basis is both humane and realistic and takes into account all the factors. Do not let it go out from this House to the people in receipt of National Assistance that there is any doubt about the correctness of the rates, or that there has been any change in the method of computing them since the right hon. Lady was the Minister.
Then—I nearly interrupted her—the right hon. Lady suggested that it was possible to give coal allowances. The right hon. Lady will remember sitting on the Front Bench many times when I asked from the back benches whether we could not have a little more coal for the winter for the old people. If she now


says that it is possible to give coal allowances, I only wish she had done something then.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is not correct. I was always being asked to give a coal allowance to every old age pensioner. I said—I remember the language I used—on each occasion that that was impossible. What I am asking now is that the officials should have a wider discretion for those people who qualify for it.

Mr. Browne: I quite agree with the right hon. Lady, and if she looks at HANSARD—but I am sure she will not bother—she will find that I realise that just as much as she does and that that was what I was asking her for. What I ask the Minister for is a widening of the discretionary powers of the Board's officers, so that for old people, especially those living alone often in cold and damp premises, some greater discretion can be given to the Board and more coal can be given to these people than they get now.
I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the fact that, in spite of the increase, I am still not happy about the rates where one or two old people live alone. I am still not happy that sufficient differentiation is made between people living alone and those living with their families.
The right hon. Lady spoke of encouraging people to go to the National Assistance Board, and I think it is time that somebody in the House said of some old age pensioners' associations, and especially of the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners, that although we all appreciate the good work they do, to my mind they do a great disservice to the old people in suggesting to them that it is not in their best interests to go to the National Assistance Board.

Mr. L. M. Lever: Nonsense.

Mr. Browne: I speak as I find the National Federation, and I should like a spirit to go round these old age pensioners' associations, not that there is something wrong in going to the National Assistance Board, but that pensioners can go as a right.

Mr. Ellis Smith: That is a new line.

Mr. Browne: I join with the right hon. Lady when she spoke of the good work of the Board's officers. I remember a case in my constituency where one of the old age pensioner association officials found a very old lady living alone who had spent nearly all her money. She was far too proud to ask for any assistance. This visitor realised that she could not get the old lady to go to the National Assistance Board, so she got into touch with the officer. He called to see the old lady, and when the visitor went back to the old lady she said that a nice kind gentleman from the church had made her an allowance, and everything was all right. That is the spirit in which the Board does its work. Its officers do not want to behave like officials, but to see that people are adequately provided for.
There is a point on which I should like to ask for the Minister's help. I have found in my constituency that the old age pensioners and their organisations are pleased if the National Assistance Board officers will go and talk to them and explain things. I should like more to be done by representatives of the Board seeking opportunities to explain the rates and other matters to the old people.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: Is the hon. Member not aware that that is part of the work of the old age pensioners' association? It has invited officers of the Board to visit the branches of the association to explain these matters. I speak with some knowledge as an honorary president of the association.

Mr. Browne: I am aware of that, and that is why I am raising the point. Encouragement is not being given in this matter, and where these meetings have been held they have done a great deal of good on both sides.
One criticism I have to make, and about which I may be wrong, is that I am still not entirely happy about the status of the National Assistance Board. I am not sure that the Minister is close enough to its operation, and I am not sure that basically the Board is always going to remain with its present function. There are about 1,500,000 people drawing assistance, and of these all but 300,000 or 400,000 are trotting round to some other Ministry to get some money.
Of the people in receipt of assistance, in round figures, three out of every 15 are drawing money from someone else, generally from the Ministry of National Insurance or the employment exchange. It is just possible that it would be better—certainly the old people would prefer it—that the Ministry of National Insurance, or the employment exchange could carry on the work of the National Assistance Board through their own officers. There is no reason why people should have to go to two offices to receive their few shillings from the State. It is possible that some change would be of benefit to everyone, especially the recipients, and, to some extent, to the cost of operation.
Lastly, when we talk about the Board in this House, we are afraid to refer to abuses. We all know that there are abuses. It is easy to talk about them, but difficult to know what to do. If the money of a man who has refused to work is cut, his wife is injured. This is a difficult matter to solve. Then there is the fellow who pretends he has lost the money paid to him and goes back for more. It would be possible to examine the question of giving relief in kind instead of money in certain cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know. The answer in my own mind is the reaction of the party opposite. But we must face the fact that the taxpayer is paying a great deal in taxes and too much money goes out in abuses. We shall not get anywhere by denying that there are abuses. We will get somewhere by making it perfectly clear that we are going to do something about it.
Finally, I should like to add my word of thanks to the officers of the Board for the way in which they have administered the service.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I appreciate the pressing urgency of this problem in relation to the passing of the Regulations. Regulations today mean much less than they used to mean. In fact, the rapidly changing cost of living has meant that for a considerable time these people living on the lowest possible scales have always been lagging behind.
The last Regulations which were issued came before the House in June, but even by September, by the cost of living figures compiled, old age pensioners were requiring

further increases from the National Assistance Board. It has been my lot to go on deputations to the National Assistance Board and to find that the chairman and the Board can do little or nothing because of the powers prescribed by the House.
The fact that these Regulations have either to be accepted or rejected ought not to preclude us from making some comments on them. The figures will not take care of the increased cost of living in the months that lie ahead. The obvious answer to an increased cost of living is a demand for increases of income from people in all walks of society—those who draw wages and those on salaries. Even last week, a huge sum was announced for the farmers because of increased costs. Obviously, if the cost of living goes up, there is a corresponding demand for increases in salaries, income, wages or whatever it may be.
What does this mean? Let us be realistic about this policy. If wages and salaries go up and there are subsidies given to farmers, up goes the cost of living again and it leaves the people with low fixed incomes lagging behind all the time.

Mr. Ellis Smith: They have no margin.

Mr. Hubbard: They have no margin whatever, and pennies mean something to these people. I wish I could be optimistic enough to believe that in the months ahead of us the figures given in the draft Regulations will in fact meet that. Can we have an assurance that if there is an all round increase in wages, corresponding with the tremendous figure given to the farmers, we shall have new Regulations before the House? If the optimism of the Minister is not realised, can he promise us that there will be fresh Regulations?
The powers of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board are strictly limited, and on almost every occasion this section of the community are lagging behind the ordinary standard of living and we find malnutrition creeping in. It is high time this House and the country realised that it is bad enough to be unemployed for periods and bad enough to be sick for periods and unable to follow gainful occupation, but these Regulations very much concern old age pensioners who are permanently unable to follow gainful occupation, and the longer they


are unable to do so the worse become their circumstances.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that even this year's Economic Survey expresses great concern about the position of the people for whom he is speaking?

Mr. Hubbard: Yes, I have that in mind and also that a few short weeks ago, replying from the Despatch Box, the Minister of National Insurance said that it would require 34s. 4d. to give the old age pensioner the equivalent purchasing power he was enjoying from 26s. in 1946. It was even lagging behind the figure stated then, and that was before the Budget.
While hon. Members opposite accuse my right hon. Friend and this party of having fixed a ceiling on subsidies when they were in office, what they seem to forget is that there is a big difference in reducing subsidies at a time when prices are going up. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite and for Ministers—especially the Minister of Food—to speak of being able to de-ration food. That can be done quite easily. If the cost of food goes up beyond those people's pockets they cannot get their share of it, and so there is all the more available for those who can afford the price.
We are speaking not so much in terms of so many shillings but of so much food, clothing and warmth, and those of us associated with the Old Age Pensioners' Association realise how desperate indeed the circumstances of many of these people are. Because they are old, they have not been able to go out through these winter months. They have needed coal to give them heat, and they have to pay for gas and electricity. Because they cannot pay for the best clothing, their clothing is worn, thin and shabby.
None of us could object to an increase in the incomes of these people, and to that extent we welcome this change; but we do say the lag of time today is bound to have a worse effect on the incomes of these people than it did when prices were more static than now. Even if we had to introduce Regulations every month, surely it would be a humane thing to do, if our experience should unhappily prove that further increases are needed to meet the increased cost of

living and the increased cost of food—at this time when subsidies are being handed out by the shovelful. If the Minister's estimates have proved to be optimistic, he can introduce fresh Regulations immediately. Our deputations have been going to the Board, and as far back as last September the then Minister was acquainted with this case.
There is another thing that I deplore in these Regulations, and that is the differential scales between people living in households and those over 21 years of age—the difference between 35s. and 31s. It has been within my experience that some men and women living at home find that they cannot manage at these rates. Who would like to feed and clothe an individual for 31s. a week nowadays? We must remember that very often the people expected to do these things are those who themselves are living on very low wages and incomes. It is rather mean and shabby that there should be differential at all when, indeed, a person entitled to supplementation comes under the "determination of need."
I have asked the area board about this and can give evidence in one case where an old man of my acquaintance could get nothing more because of the differential. He was receiving assistance only on the basis of 26s. a week. In spite of all they wished to do, his family could not keep him at this figure and he was removed to an institution. There it was found that it cost almost £4 a week to keep him—from Government and local authorities' funds. Yet a few shillings more would have sufficed to have kept him in his own home where he could enjoy the comforts of his own fireside.
Therefore, I wish indeed that there could be a little extension of the humane side. Differential scales can have no justification in determination of need Regulations. They are only there for the people who need them, and no matter what the circumstances in a man's life, whether he is living with his family or living in lodgings, they are bound to be the same, unless he is subsidised by his family, and when that family is on a low income it is altogether wrong to have these things.
In my constituency, we have a splendid area officer. An hon. Gentleman opposite spoke about people explaining things to the Old Age Pensioners' Association. He is quite wrong. We never told them


not to go for National Assistance, because we go round the country advising them what they are entitled to, and encouraging them to get it, although we do not like a means test and think a basic pension is the right way. At no time have we told people not to apply for National Assistance. We encourage them to do so, and we go out of our way and spend a great deal of time, and have done for years, explaining to them what they are entitled to receive.

Mr. J. N. Browne: That is the point I was making. The hon. Gentleman contradicts himself. He tells the old people they should not go in for National Assistance, and then he tells them they ought to have it. The effect of that is to drive the Old Age Pensioners' Association away from National Assistance.

Mr. Hubbard: I never said anything of the sort. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of trying to listen. Perhaps I think like a Scotsman and speak like a Scotsman, and that makes it difficult for him. We as a party have never believed in a means test. I think it is bad, and, therefore, while we do not like the determination of need, it is something we have to accept. We have never told the pensioners they ought not to take advantage of National Assistance. We have told them repeatedly, and, as a matter of fact, when the predecessor of my right hon. Friend was Minister of National Insurance, I was informed wherever I went that there would be an influx of applications for National Assistance, because the people did not know until we told them.
However, I was trying, when interrupted, to pay some tribute to the area officer in my constituency, who has just been to about 14 branches of the Old Age Pensioners' Association explaining what they are entitled to. He has certain discretionary powers, running to about half-a-crown or something like that, and he exercises that power wisely and as generously as he can. What I fear on this occasion is that the Minister might well be proved to have been too optimistic, and, in fact, in a month or two, we shall have general, all-round increases being demanded.
Nobody living on a low income will stand idly by knowing that the doctors have had a retrospective payment, and

that the farmers and the bankers have had them, and that money seems to be available for these purposes. We simply cannot do it with people living on these scales. If the Minister has been too optimistic, I am concerned to see that we do not let these people go on suffering for another 18 months, or 12 months, or even six months, because the Minister should remember that part of his duties and of the responsibilities of his office is to see that these people do not suffer.
Summertime is a bad time to assess the scales. Things are never so difficult for the old people in the summer. They do not require so much coal, gas, electricity or clothing, though they require the same amount of food. The march of time will leave them behind, and who is going to say that, even on this maximum of 59s., they are adequately provided for today? In spite of all the efforts of the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, it takes me all my time to get my meals for a few days in this House for that. I do not show any effects of malnutrition, but I find it very difficult at any rate to meet my food requirements here.
Remember those people have to buy in the same market, and which one of us can say that even these new scales are adequate, bearing in mind present day prices for clothing, food and everything else, plus increasing rents and rates which may be covered by the National Assistance Board scale. Therefore, I say in all sincerity, that even though we approve these scales tonight, none of us can say that we are satisfied that they are commensurate with the cost of living. We should remember that the very people who require the advantage of these Regulations today are the very people who have made this country what it is, the very people who made the industry of the country what it is, and it is poor compensation for them, when they can no longer follow gainful occupation, that even under these Regulations they will receive only 59s. a week for a man and wife.
While thanking the Minister for the expeditious way in which he has set about this matter, I hope that he will in future keep his eye on the problem and will remember that when he is dealing with the old people he is dealing with those who have made a great contribution to this country and who are deserving of the best we can give them.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Until the last few words of the last speaker the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) I was particularly disappointed at the trend this debate had taken. In the end, the hon. Member did extend his compliments to the Minister on the expeditious way in which he has dealt with this problem, though in a word or two before he seemed to apologise for so extending it. However, it is his last words I am remembering, because I think they reflected the spirit in which we ought to discuss these Regulations.
I was rather sorry to recognise that little bit of party feeling and sectional argument which seemed to be drifting into the debate. I am certain it is wrong that that should happen. It was the right hon. Lady who really set that tone. I do not see the necessity for it.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends provoked me.

Mr. Nicholls: Before there had been any interruption at all the right hon. Lady thought fit to refer to the increase in prices which came after the Election. That really is not good enough. I do not think we ought to conduct this debate in any party spirit.

Mr. Hubbard: What is the hon. Gentleman now doing?

Mr. Nicholls: If we have to do that there are one or two figures we ought to bear in mind. When we are talking about the old people and about those who have to apply for National Assistance due to increased prices, I think we ought in fairness to explain when those increased prices came about. I find that the cost of living went up as much in the four months from June to October when the Election took place as it has in the six and a half months since October. With regard to food, for instance, the June figure was 135·9, in October it had gone up to 142·8, and between October and the present time it has gone up to 150·9.
I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman who said that old people do not buy clothes. My father, who is an ex-miner and 72 years of age, still buys the clothes which he thinks the times demand. He is not on assistance, but if he were his concern for his general appearance would not be very different to what it is now.

The interjection was that people on National Assistance do not buy clothes.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: They cannot.

Mr. Nicholls: I am saying that people with families on National Assistance have to buy clothes because, even if they are on National Assistance, their children's clothes and shoes wear out.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is to the everlasting credit of the new administration that allowance is made for clothing where necessary.

Mr. Nicholls: The cost of living on clothing in June was 138·6. It rose to 145·1 in October, and in the six and a half months that followed it has gone up to 147·1. On household goods the figures are rather more startling, and people on National Assistance still have to run their households. The June figure was 134·2, the October figure was 136·5, and it has now gone down slightly to 136·2.

Mr. W. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman say from where he is quoting?

Mr. Nicholls: I am quoting from the cost of living figures available to any hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman and I often have a chat together, and we can go into the matter later. I only quote them now to have it placed on record that all the increases in costs that people have to face have not come about since the General Election.

Mr. Hubbard: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, whatever the increased costs might be since October, they are on top of the others?

Mr. Nicholls: Of course, but it seems to have been the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken to anticipate that things are going to be desperately bad. I hope they will not. It was very unfair to talk about a £39m. extra subsidy for farmers, and to suggest that it had not been taken into account, when we have had the word of the Chancellor that the figures he gave in the Budget speech did take that into account. There is no need to frighten the old folk when we meet them. We all go along to the meetings of the old people's associations, and it would be wrong to put in their minds things which from official quarters we know are not the facts.
I agree, however, that it is the duty of all of us to watch their interests, and if we find that prices, despite all anticipations, are running away, we will have to see that these people are protected. I should like that point to be made as coming from the whole House and not just half of it. That is the point of my intervention in the debate.
I appeal to the Minister to give special discretionary powers to the officers who administer this scheme. It is the experience of all of us that they know their job. They are doing it sympathetically, and the reputation they had in years gone by is not present today. We can safely entrust them with more discretion. I hope that other speakers will not apologise for passing on a compliment to the Minister.
I remember last year the hon. Member the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) chastising the right hon. Lady in a charming way, but he did object to the time-lag that had taken place in these Regulations. I think he will be pleased tonight we have acted with some speed, and I hope he will pass on his congratulations. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) on that occasion made a strong point that only 15s. separated those who were blind from those with all their senses. That difference is now 18s. We ought not to make a party point out of it, but we have shown that we listened to those arguments put forward last year and acted on them with expedition. I think we shall help the case for the special discretion we are asking for the officers if we deal with it in an all-party manner, devoid of special party or sectional pleading.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I respond at once to the invitation of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) to pay my tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department. When any Member of this House does something to which I take exception he will be told if I get the opportunity, but I shall tell him in a very kindly way.
I have made a note on a piece of paper that I must congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department on two things; first, the brevity of his speech in introducing the Regulations, which gives back bench Members an opportunity of speaking, and secondly

the speed with which he is operating the scales—and that is very complimentary to the Department. They have done exceedingly well, and I pay them a tribute for so doing, because they have appreciated the point that we put to them on 12th March with regard to the urgency of bringing in these Regulations. It is to their credit that they are bringing them in so quickly after representation has been made to them.
My first complaint is this. It would have been much better, in my opinion, if the increase in the basic pension rates could have been brought into operation simultaneously with these scales. I think we are all agreed upon that. But I know the impracticability of doing that because of the amount of work that has to be done. The right hon. Lady had to face the same position the year before last. When old age pensioners have complained to me about the time-lag, I have said, "You have got to remember that there are 4,250,000 old age pensioners, every one of whom has to have a new book; in those new books are 52 money orders, and if you multiply that by 4¼ million that will give you some idea of the task that they have got to undertake." So I have to content myself by saying that it is impracticable to bring in the increase in the basic rate at the same date as the new scales.
The objective of these amended Regulations should be to base the new scale rates in relation to the spending value of the £. If they fail to do that, then they fail in their purpose and objective. It is hoped that they will attain that objective because, as has been mentioned so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Hubbard), they are dealing with the poorest section of the community, and when poor people are crying out for assistance it is the duty of hon. Members and the Departments concerned to render that assistance as quickly and as generously as they can.
The solemn question to which we have to address ourselves and to which we have to find the true answer—and not from a party point of view—is whether these Regulations relate the spending power of the £ to the new scale rates. I say that they do not do that, in face of the increased cost of living. Already we have had a close analysis of the rise in the price of food. It is quite true that the clothing prices have not been increased


very much, but the rise in the price of food and fuel—two very important items in the lives of old people—have gone up tremendously.
The Regulations now under discussion are the third set—and this is both remarkable and unchallengeable—which have been introduced in this House since 1950. Never in the history of this House have Regulations been submitted one after another in so short a time. That is conclusive evidence of the trend of rising prices to meet the needs of the poorer sections of the public. The first set of Regulations was introduced on 5th May, 1950, and came into operation on 12th June, 1950. The second set was made on 19th July, 1951, and came into operation on 3rd September, 1951. The set now before the House was made on 4th April, and I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary will, all being well, become operative on 16th June. There is conclusive evidence of the trend of events, which have caused these Regulations to be brought more rapidly than hitherto.
I submit that not one of these sets of Regulations met the needs of those requiring assistance. How true were the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy, when he said that those who drew old age pensions, or were in need, always lagged behind the prices and scales submitted in the Regulations. The constant and ever rising food prices have destroyed the desire of the National Assistance Board to meet the needs of the poorer people. It is not altogether their fault.
I have great admiration for, and have said so on many occasions, not only in the House but outside, the work of the area officers who have to administer the National Assistance Board. They have done a splendid job of work, but there are still a few who have a miserable conception of the old poor law system. They will have to die off, and in their place will come a newer generation who have a wide vision about what is to be done. I have a good area officer in my constituency, and when I compare his generous attitude with the parsimonious attitude of the area officer in the neighbouring place, then I would say … Well, I do not think I will continue that.
The Regulations now under consideration contain, within their ambit, and this is a tribute to the Department, the highest increase ever given. That is unchallengeable, but I must repeat that they fail, and fail miserably, to meet the requirements of the poorer section of the country. In 1951 we were told, when the Regulations were under consideration, and we were putting forward arguments based on information we had secured from various documents available, that the estimated increase in the cost of living would be 10 per cent. In fact, the actual increase that year was 15 per cent. Therefore when the Regulations were brought in 1951 the rise in the cost of living was under-estimated.
The hon. Member for Peterborough went back to October for his figures on the cost of living. I will not do that, but I will bring it nearer to present day circumstances. I could go back to 1939, but it would serve no useful purpose. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me on this. I am not making a party point. From January, 1952, to April this month the cost of food has increased by 6 per cent., and the cost of clothing has risen by 1 per cent.

Mr. Turton: Could the hon. Gentleman say what figures he is quoting? The Index of Retail Prices published by the Ministry of Labour shows, in the index price for food from 15th January to the last current period, the one published yesterday, a rise of 1.2 out of a total of 150 points. I do not know where he gets his figure of 6 per cent., but the figure for clothing published for January, 1952, was 147.1 and the figure published yesterday is 147.1, so there is no rise at all.

Mr. Brown: My authority for the figures I am quoting is the Ministry of Food, Parliamentary Secretary's Branch, January, 1952.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the hon. Gentleman say what foods this covers? It has no meaning unless he states what they are.

Mr. Turton: The index price covers the same foodstuffs as it covered when the right hon. Lady was Minister of Insurance and dealt with the same point in the debate of last July. I was merely correcting the figure as I would not like figures which were not accurate to get abroad.

Mr. Brown: I hope I shall never be accused of giving inaccurate figures. We have both been reading the same document, but we may not have both referred to the same period.
The rise in the price of fuel and light since 15th January up to and including 31st March is 9 per cent. That figure is extracted from the Ministry of Labour Gazette. From October, 1951, to March, 1952, the cost of miscellaneous goods has risen by 3 per cent. and of services by 4 per cent. If one takes a few individual items mentioned by the right hon. Lady, one will find that out of 36 articles every one has increased in price.
I hope hon. Members opposite will not accuse me, because this is the first time I have mentioned the Conservative document, "Britain Strong and Free."

Mr. Ian Winterbottom: Look what the hon. Member has missed.

Mr. Brown: I said "quoted" not "read." It says:
A Government will be judged according to the effect of its programme upon rising costs and prices.
Prices have gone up. I am not saying that they are 100 per cent. the responsibility of the Government. The rises are due to world conditions in the main but, if they continue, we have a responsibility to increase the basic pension rate and the scales under the Regulations. That comes to us as a full responsibility.
I want to say a word or two upon the rising price of fuel. The figures given by my right hon. Friend are identical with the figures that I have extracted, but instead of giving the percentage increase I want to give the exact prices, because our people in the country understand increased prices in terms of £ s. d. rather than in terms of percentages. Expressed in terms of £ s. d., the increases in the price of fuel are: London, 7s. 8d.; Birmingham, 5s. 11d.; Manchester, 6s. 1d.; Leeds, 5s. 10d.; Bristol, 7s. 1d., and Exeter, 8s. 5d. The overall increase in the price of coal is 5s. 6d.
There is one thing that I do not understand. It is true that under the existing Regulations old age pensioners and people in need of assistance can get a coal allowance, but I regret to find that it is for inferior coal. That is wrong.

It is manifestly unfair. It is socially unjust to concede to an Old Age Pensioner applicant for coal an allowance for coal of an inferior quality. If there is anyone who is entitled to the best that the country can give, it is the old age pensioner.
Many of these people do not live in modern council houses or in "ideal homes." Many of them have lived in their dwellings since they were born—obsolete houses, damp, dismal, unlighted—by natural light—and they require more coal, the best coal. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy that they want the best. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary, with the Minister and with the National Assistance Board, not to approach the coal allowance on a parsimonious basis.
I have two or three old colliers in my constituency. One man started in the pit at the age of eight. He worked until he was 68 producing coal, and after 60 years in the pits he has to be content with an allowance for coal of an inferior quality. That is definitely wrong. Instead of the allowance being based on the lowest quality of coal, they should be given the best that the country produces. I plead with the Minister to see that the officers of the Board act on this basis.
I am not very optimistic, as I have already said, that we shall not have to come again to the Minister to ask for a revision of the scales now before the House. The rise in the cost of living, whoever may be at fault and from whatever source the rise comes, will have to be met. I intensely dislike causing the administrative trouble and difficulty which is necessary to meet the rise in the price of food, fuel and clothing, and it would have been much better had we gone just a wee bit further now in order to obviate coming again to the House at a very near date with a new set of Regulations.
The Regulations are put before the House with the express intention of their coming into operation on 16th June, 1952. I pray and hope that a fall in the cost of living will be our experience very soon, and that as a result the position of our old folk, and of those who require assistance, will not necessitate our asking the House for further increases. But I warn the Minister and his Parliamentary


Secretary, and the National Assistance Board, and the Government, that unless an attempt to bring down cost of living prices is made, we shall not hesitate to ask the Minister to bring forward amended Regulations which will give these old people a standard of life commensurate with that of other people.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: I hope that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) will forgive me if I do not deal in great detail with his remarks, but I have several questions I want to put to the Minister, and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the speed with which he has introduced Regulations to meet the changed circumstances; on the efficiency with which in a year he has managed to bridge the gap between bringing into force the Regulations and the payment of the increased benefits; and on the sympathy he is showing in this matter, which is especially exemplified by the fact that at long last consideration is to be given to the question of raising the 5s. weekly pocket money for those in Part III homes a change which is long overdue.
I want to confine myself to two narrow points, the first of which is the matter of disregards for National Assistance. Like other hon. Members, I have been refreshing myself by re-reading the report of the debate of 10th July, 1951. On that occasion I, like other hon. Members, put a number of points to which, I must say quite frankly, we got rather a dusty answer from the then Parliamentary Secretary—if, in fact, it was an answer. I am delighted that, circumstances having changed, most of the points which I raised then have been answered. Two, however, remain.
On the matter of disregards, I should like the Minister to say whether he is satisfied that the basic £400 is now the right sum. That amount has been unchanged since 1943, I am informed. Nowadays, £400 is not what it was. I am leaving out war savings, and so forth. Can the Minister assure us that he is satisfied that by retaining the £400 level he is not excluding from National Assistance a number of people who are entitled to it.
I should also like elucidation in regard to the lodging charge in the Part III

home. It seems to me that the increased cost of maintenance of these homes has been met by allowing an extra burden to fall upon the local authorities. I consider that this is a charge which ought to be borne by the national income. It may be that it is the same purse from which the money comes in the long run, but there is an important principle involved. I think we should be going back to the worst aspects of the old Poor Law if we allowed this burden increasingly to fall on local authorities. It should be borne on taxes.

11.45 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I want to deal with something which has not been mentioned up to now, the scales in the second paragraph of the amounts paid to people who do not pay rent. It is not generally known that when we are discussing Assistance Regulations more than old age pensioners are included. I want to deal with a section of the community about which very little is said, but who are deserving of very special consideration in relation to these scales. I refer to mentally or physically handicapped persons who are maintained wholly by the family. In very many instances the rate which is suggested is not paid in full. The amount required is assessed on the basis of the full rate that is laid down, and very often the Assistance Board officer, in making an assessment of the amount necessary, takes into account the earnings of the rest of the family when saying what shall be paid to a mentally or physically handicapped person who is completely incapable at any time of earning a living.
I ask the Minister to draw the attention of his officers to this matter and to see that, wherever it is possible, no amount of the income of the rest of the family shall be taken into account in paying rates for these mentally or physically handicapped persons. There are special features in relation to these cases. Very often special assistance has to be obtained or someone has to come into the family for a period to look after the mentally or physically handicapped person in order to relieve the rest of the family of the responsibility of looking after them permanently.
Very many of these cases would be in institutions if there was accommodation for them, particularly the mentally defective.


We asked for figures recently of the number of mentally handicapped persons who were resident in their homes over the age of 16—it is laid down that over the age of 16 the parents or the rest of the family are no longer financially responsible for their maintenance. Many of these cases are in families because they are unable to find accommodation for them at all in institutions. There are thousands of them and, if and when they are admitted to an institution, the weekly maintenance cost is about six times the amount that it is suggested they should receive if they are at home with their parents looking after them.
In my opinion, the scales for cases of that sort are low. While I agree that it would be very difficult to set up a separate scale entirely for that type of person, I should like to be assured that the Minister will ask his area officers to pay special attention to the difficulties of parents or other relatives for maintaining and looking after these people in their homes and that the full maintenance rate as suggested should be paid wherever that is possible and that, even if the income of the family is very big, that that should not be taken into account from an earnings point of view.
It was that particular section I wanted to refer to, because it is not generally known that these scales do apply and that payment can be made. Leaving out the question of the additional welfare services that local authorities are responsible for seeing put into operation for this type of person, it is not generally known that these rates can be paid in a household to mentally or physically defective persons over 16 years of age, irrespective of the earnings of the rest of the family.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) referred to abuses, because I think that this is one of the services where there is very little abuse. How many prosecutions, in fact, take place in a year of people who are found guilty of obtaining relief from the National Assistance Board when they have no right to do so?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Lady must surely know from her great knowledge that the number of prosecutions bears very little relation, I am sure, to the number of abuses.

Mrs. Braddock: I think that is a very serious statement to make indeed: it reflects very badly on the administration.

Dr. Summerskill: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Braddock: It reflects on the administration, because it is the duty of the administration to make certain that people are making correct statements before any additional assistance is paid by the Board.

Mr. Iain Macleod: We have not had this year's Report of the Board, but surely the hon. Lady remembers that in the Report a year ago there was considerable evidence from the Board themselves of abuses and that it was the Board themselves who added that in extremely few instances were they able to prosecute.

Mrs. Braddock: There is rather a difference between the question of whether it is possible to prosecute and whether the Board are able to put a stop to any possible abuses in obtaining money or assistance from the Board. There is very little abuse at all in relation to the tremendous amount of money paid out by the Board, yet the statement made by the hon. Member for Govan would give an indication that there are large numbers of people who do obtain money from the Board to which they are not entitled. I think that is quite a wrong supposition.
People can get through all sorts of Regulations. If those who have to deal with people who dodge laws and regulations at the top of the scale did it as well as those who check the poorer section of the community to see that they do not get a farthing more than the Regulations permit, there would be more people in prison from the top of the sale—and they would be more entitled to be there—than those at the bottom end of the scale. I do not think that the abuse is sufficient to warrant making a particular and specific reference to it in relation to the very large amounts that the Board pay out.
With reference to the comments of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) on clothing and household necessities, anybody who knows how these people have to manage on this low rate would realise that it is completely impossible for them to replace the things that wear out. They cannot replace them; they just borrow them or cadge them from somebody else. Buying new clothing,


particularly boots, for people on the National Assistance scales, is very difficult.
The Assistance Board officers have a certain discretion, and here let me stress the request made from both sides of the House that a wider scope of discretion should be allowed to these officers. On the amounts that are paid, it is impossible for these people to replace the things they require. I do not think sufficient latitude is allowed, and I think further attention should be paid to that matter.
I visit some of these people in my own constituency in Liverpool, which had the reputation of being very poor in the past, when, under the Administration of the party opposite, poverty was something which everybody lived with. It was not just the person next door, but whole streets of poverty. Those who are in receipt of National Assistance are in need of the bedding and clothing which the ordinary person is entitled to and which the people in work can procure for themselves. The amount of discretion which an area officer has in regard to bedding and clothing should be extended further.
The last point I want to make is that the expenses of old age pensioners living on their own are very often higher than if two or three people are living with a family. There are things they need and must have, and although the area officers in my division in Liverpool are very good, we have still got a few relics of the old Poor Law administration. We have not got away from it altogether yet. On very many occasions, I have had to send specific cases to the Secretary of the Assistance Board because I considered they had not been properly dealt with in certain parts of the Liverpool area.
Discussion on these Regulations gives us the opportunity of saying that we ought to expect these area officers to forget the old methods of dealing with Poor Law cases, and of suggesting that wide powers of discretion should be given to them to see that the people coming under the Regulations are as fairly dealt with as it is possible for them to be.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I think the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exhange (Mrs. Braddock) tended to exaggerate her case, as she often does. She exaggerated when she referred to what my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) said when he made a quite reasonable point. The hon. Lady had to twist it into making him say that there was a great number of abuses, which he never did.
I want to congratulate the Government on bringing in these Regulations, because I am quite certain that my supporters in my constituency in Sheffield will be glad—those who are on National Assistance—to receive the new scales, and those who contribute by taxation to pay them. I am also certain that I speak for those Liberals with whom we in Sheffield are joined in our local federation, and those sitting on this bench, because this is something that is very near to their hearts.
I wish to refer to some of the arguments that have been put from the other side of the House. It seems to me that they have been trying to suggest that the rise in the cost of living is the result of the actions of this Government. Hon. Members opposite have mentioned the question of farm prices, and yet it was, to a large extent, the increase in farm wages, which were raised directly after the September award, which resulted in the higher farm prices. Are hon. Members opposite now going to say that they are against that increase?
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) mentioned the price of coal. That is more or less directly related to the increase in the miners' wages. Is he going to say that he is against that? I think the results in the mines recently redound greatly to the credit of the miners, and I do not think hon. Members opposite should try to make out that the rise in the cost of living is a result of the actions of this Government.
We heard the figures from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Nicholls) and also from the Minister and what is happening to the cost-of-living index.

Mr. T. Brown: I never blamed the Government. I said it was due to world conditions.

Mr. Roberts: I am glad to have that statement from the hon. Member and I should like it repeated by every hon. Member who speaks from that side of the House, because I have heard it suggested here, and sometimes outside, that these rising costs are directly due to the present Administration. That is quite wrong, and I am very glad that this debate has been able to bring out that argument and that we have been able to get the assurance from the hon. Gentleman opposite that these things are not the result of the efforts of the present Administration.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: If that is the hon. Gentleman's argument in respect of coal and agriculture, what is his argument in respect of the rise in prices for transport for which the Government sought to blame nationalisation and the rising costs?

Mr. Speaker: I think this debate is getting a little wide of the Regulations.

Mr. Roberts: I was merely answering the points raised earlier in the debate, Mr. Speaker. I quite appreciate that I should be out of order in giving the very easy answer to the hon. Gentleman which I imagine he already knows himself.
I notice the absence of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). He and his hon. Friends are here often when it is a question of attacking impositions placed upon the community, but they do not come here tonight when the Government are giving assistance to certain sections of the community. What about all his gibes about mean people? He always comes to make those, but tonight he is conspicuously absent. I think that shows something of the sincerity of what he says at other times.

Mr. Hubbard: That is cheap.

Mr. Roberts: It has been suggested—

Mr. Hubbard: Where is the Minister of Health and where are many other right hon. Members opposite? I repeat, that is a cheap gibe.

Mr. Roberts: I do not think it is a cheap gibe. We have heard representatives of the Government who came here to put their case. We are adequately represented, but the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has not been in his place

the whole night. All I am saying is that when he attacks the Government so vehemently, then I think we can draw some conclusions about his sincerity from the way he behaves on an occasion like this.
I wish to end as I began and to say that this shows the good faith of the Government and of those who support them. It is our intention to do what is right and proper by those who need assistance. I am proud to be speaking from this side of the House tonight in support of the Government who are prepared, in these difficult times, to subscribe £25 million to help those in need.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. James Carmichael: I cannot follow the hon. Member for Heeley (Mr. P. Roberts) and others who have poured out congratulatory messages to the Government tonight. I do not say that in any intolerant way against the Ministers of the Department, because I recognise that they have to frame their Regulations within a certain budgetary figure. Therefore I am not levelling a charge in any personal sense against the Minister, but I question whether we are the competent people to measure up to the responsibility of the very poorest in the country.
I have examined the figures and in the case of a man and wife the total works out at something like £148 a year. If they have a rent of something like 10s. a week it is in the region of £170, and that is giving the benefit of the doubt to the Government. Sneering gibes have been made at the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). Are we entitled to take pride in the fact that an old or sick couple will have an annual income of £170? It costs the hon. Member more in gratuities to people who supply him with food outside his own home.

Mr. P. Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me I fail to understand the relevance of his remarks. I was saying that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has attacked the Government so vehemently, yet does not come here tonight to give his thanks. It is a question of the sincerity of his views.

Mr. Carmichael: You are suggesting that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting himself into difficulties in using the pronoun "you." It really refers to the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is accusing the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale of a lack of sincerity, and expects him to be here tonight to congratulate the Government on their benevolence to the poorest in the land. I question whether we are justified in praising ourselves. The total sum is in the region of £170 a year, and, as I said, the hon. Gentleman will pay more in gratuities to the people who feed him outside his own home in a year than that sum.

Mr. Roberts: I am a Yorkshireman. I do not accept anything like the hon. Gentleman's figure.

Mr. Carmichael: I thought there was a streak of Scottish blood in the hon. Gentleman.
I have never been enthusiastic at any time about the Regulations. The only people who are not entitled to discuss them are the people who must approve them. I am satisfied that the Minister, his officials, and the Board go through the Regulations in detail, and decide the scales, but the House is not permitted the right to amend any one of them. They have to be accepted in toto or discarded altogether. I disagree with this form of legislation which denies the right of examination in detail or amendment. I do not blame the Minister for that. It has been the practice from the beginning, and I hope something can be done, even if it means the amendment of the National Assistance Act.
I have never been able to understand why the person living alone or in charge of the house gets a higher sum if he is over 21 than a person under Section 2 (c). For example, if a person is the occupant of a house and decides to transfer the ownership to his son or daughter his scale can be immediately reduced because he has no responsibility. If he merely takes the technical precaution of retaining the house in his own name he gets the added sum. Why should we distinguish between the person in that category and the person who has not got that responsibility, and give the former 5s. 0d. more than the latter person? The rent is already taken into

account, so there can be no question of giving the extra because of rent.
Again, does a person between 18 and 21 get less to the extent of 26s.? He actually gets 9s. below the first person mentioned, and 5s. below the person of 21 and over. Why is it imagined that a person between 18 and 21 lives on 5s. less than a person of 21 years of age? When a young man reaches 18 years of age he is given the responsibility of defending his country. Surely from the age of 18 and upwards there should not be three scales; There should be one scale covering all persons. I admit this has gone on since the very beginning, but I have always objected to it, and I shall continue to object.
We have two lots of scales—the ordinary and the special scales. But the special scale applies only to blind persons and those who have had to give up their employment to be treated for tuberculosis and other diseases of the respiratory system. Over 20 years ago the progressive local authorities in this country always had a much higher scale for the people who were sick and suffered to a greater degree than the ordinary persons. Here we have two scales, and I think there is room for an extension of the special scales to other cases.
My next point concerns institutional treatment. The sum paid today is 26s. It has always been the same figure since the very beginning. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) in his place, because I gather that this scale can only be increased as a result of consultation between the Minister of National Insurance, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. I hope that the hon. Member will use his good offices with a view to securing a very big improvement.
There are two serious points involved here. It has been admitted that the 5s. for the individual is quite inadequate. I hope that that sum will be increased to at least 10s. The burden on the local authorities is my next point. If the local authorities have to bear this burden much longer there will be a restriction of the programme for providing homes for the aged people. Therefore, it is urgent that the amount granted to the local authorities should be increased so that the


old people should have more by way of pocket money and the local authorities may extend their building programme. I hope that the point will be considered very seriously.
My next point relates to exceptional needs. It is true the local officers have discretionary powers, but the discretionary powers are regulated by the words "exceptional needs"—a phrase of very narrow scope. Therefore, those words should be removed from the Act. Everyone admits the broadmindedness of the Board's officers. Some of them have been doing this job for over 30 years. They know the business inside out. They know the types of people with whom they are dealing, and they know what the needs are far better than any Regulation can specify. They know what discretion gives them. I hope in the times that lie ahead they will be given greater powers locally than they have now. If that is done, then it will be necessary to examine again the question of exceptional needs.
The last point I want to make is the one raised by the hon. Member for Govan, about doubtful cases. I have examined the facts about one point the hon. Gentleman raised—of people who refused work. According to the records in the 1950 report, published in 1951, there were actually 15 cases of prosecutions for neglect of employment in the entire country. Here, we are dealing with millions of cases, and the number of prosecutions was in the region of 960. I say that this is a libel on the people who apply for assistance. It is also a condemnation of the officials of the Department, because I know of no officers employed by the Civil Service who are so competent to examine the claims and requirements of the people than those working for the Assistance Board.
I have something like 30 years' experience. I know when the Public Assistance committees began to give relief to able-bodied persons there were a number of fraud cases because it was an entirely new Department and an entirely new form of social service. But the officers who were there at the beginning are still there, and so I say that this is a libel on the people who make application for relief and a condemnation of the officials themselves.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am sure the hon. Gentleman only wants to face the facts. It is not enough to read the reports. I

would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should talk to the officers who administer this service and satisfy himself about the extent of the abuses.

Mr. Carmichael: I talk regularly to the officials, because I pay as close attention to this side of social service as any other Member of the House. The facts are in the appendix to the report. It is not good enough to say there were a lot of cases and nothing is being done about it. It is unfair to the applicants or the officers. When anybody makes a statement libelling people for getting money falsely—and that is what they would be doing—we should have some more tangible evidence than has been submitted.
I want to appeal to the Minister, because the Parliamentary Secretary said the increase would have to cover a long period, to keep a close watch on the Regulation and, if necessary, come back to the House. So far as the administration is concerned he has worked quickly, and I hope it will continue in the future, because there will be a big inrush of applicants due to the gap between June and September.
Let the Minister display notices in every National Assistance office to make it known what the scales of the Assistance Board will be and give every possible help to people to find out whether they can make the application for the increased scales. It is no use having an increase unless these needy people get encouragement to make applications. I appeal for publicity within the Ministry's offices so that people may know the facts.

12.20 a.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): We have had a very informed debate and if I intervene now it is because I know there are some hon. Members who have spoken who would like a reply to the points they have made and wish to avail themselves of any transport facilities there may be for getting home.
The right hon. Lady who opened the debate was, I felt, in a little difficulty in finding very much to criticise in these Regulations which embody the recommendations of the Assistance Board. The Regulations contain nothing more than the new assistance scales. As far as everything else in the practice and policy of


the Board is concerned it same today as it was six when the right hon. Lady of National Insurance.
The points which have been made in one or two speeches from the other side tonight have been made before in similar debates on Regulations approving new Assistance scales. They have been made in 1948, 1950 and 1951 and have been answered at any rate with as great, possibly greater, ability than I can command by the right hon. Lady, by her quondam assistant, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) and by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
These Regulations do not amend anything in the policy or practice of the Board except the actual scales themselves. The right hon. Lady said—and I thought she was getting a little wide of the main subject—that Labour never reduced the food subsidies. That, of course, is disputable. Whether or not that was a fact, they did not stop the cost of living going up steadily in the years between 1945 and 1951. From time to time the late Government had to bring forward and sponsor new Assistance scales.
I think we can all share the view that it is fortunate that on this occasion these changes, combined with other changes in the pension and benefit rates under National Insurance, are taking place during the summer. During the summer months the needs of persons on assistance undoubtedly are less than during the winter. If there are difficulties in the matter of timing and if these matters do take some months to bring into operation, especially in the case of pensions and family allowances, this will occur during the summer and that is something for which we may all be thankful.
The right hon. Lady asked whether the Board exercised, or could exercise, discretion—I think she suggested a "greater discretion"—in the subject of fuel allowances and in the payment of fares for persons who have to attend hospital. I am told that the number of recent additions to the scale payments for extra fuel was about 24,000 and that the position is that the Board's officers are always ready to consider cases where, because of the applicant's state of health, or because of defects in the home, it is clear that expenditure on fuel must be

abnormal. I think, therefore, we may take it that the position as regards discretionary grants for fuel remains the same as before and that it will be extended as necessary to meet any rise in the cost of fuel that has taken place or that may occur in the future.
On the point of payment of fares for persons in receipt of assistance who have to attend hospital, the Assistance Board reimburse such persons those payments, but they do so as agents for the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The charge, of course, is recovered through the Health Service and is not charged to the Assistance Board. It would, therefore, be out of order for me to pursue the matter further on the Motion that is now before the House to approve the draft Regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) and others asked about persons in what is known as Part III accommodation. I feel sure that what we propose here in regard to this matter is a sensible arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is anxious to make a considered increase in the amount of pocket money available to persons in Part III accommodation. There is also the question in regard to the amount of the minimum charge, which my right hon. Friend prescribes, which local authorities may charge for such accommodation.
My right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider those two matters and they will then prescribe these amounts. It will be open to the House to consider them upon a Prayer being put down. I feel sure, however, that this is a wiser method than prescribing a global amount in the Regulations which those Ministers are bound then to divide as best they can as between the charge for accommodation and the amount of pocket money which is allowed to the person who is being accommodated.
The hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), made some observations about mentally defective children, which I have noted, and I will see that her remarks are conveyed to the Assistance Board and carefully examined. I myself am rather too much of a novice in this field to have completely understood the points which the hon. Lady was making.
I think I have replied to the main points which have been raised during the debate. I thank the House for the way in which the new scales have been received in all quarters, and I should like to express what is, I think, the general feeling in the House that we all believe that the Assistance Board are performing a task of exceptional difficulty with courtesy, with humanity, and with great understanding of the needs of the people whom they serve.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I make no apology for continuing a debate, even at this hour, upon a matter of first-class importance. I regret that the matter comes up for discussion so late. Although I join in the tributes, such as they are, which have been paid to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not want anyone to go away with the impression that the level of these scales is satisfactory.
Even applying the standards which the White Paper and the Explanatory Memorandum put forward, I do not regard them as satisfactory. I invite the attention of the Minister and of the House to paragraph 6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I read there that the proposals in Regulation 2, besides allowing for changes in prices since the present rates came into operation last autumn, also took account of current trends, including, in particular, the increases in food prices.
The changes in prices since last autumn are taken into account, the current trends, and the reduction of the food subsidies. Bearing that in mind, one turns to look at the relation of the new rates to the old. Taking a particular instance, a boy or girl aged between 11 and 16 years, there is an increase from 13s. 6d. to 16s., which is 2s. 6d. We are told that 1s. 6d. of that is represented by the reduction in the food subsidy. So in that instance, there is 1s. left to represent what are described as current trends and the rise in prices since last autumn. Quite apart from any party question, I would have thought it ludicrous to describe that rise as approaching the standards set out in the White Paper. I would have thought that in the case of children of this age the rise in transport costs alone has exceeded that balance of 1s.
I want these considerations to be borne in mind. I support the objection of the

hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) to the time lag between a person of 21 or over and a person living alone, or who is a householder and, as such, directly responsible for rent and the household necessities. I cannot see justification for this differentiation. I would have thought that it was difficult for the officers concerned to ascertain direct responsibility for household necessities. As my hon. Friend suggests, it appears to be an indefensible anomaly. In a case I have in mind it has the result that if a brother and sister live together, and the brother is the householder and pays the rent, he gets the rent allowance, and he also gets 4s. additional National Assistance over and above his sister, on the supposition, which is apparently adopted in the Department, but would not be adopted anywhere else, that because he is the householder and pays the rent he is directly responsible for buying the household necessities. It is not a view his sister shares.
A distinction between the Assistance payments in these cases seems to be an unjustifiable anomaly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to bear this point in mind, because it has been made repeatedly from these benches year after year. As draft Regulations follow one another, the point is made with increasing eloquence by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peake: And it has been repeatedly answered.

Mr. Irvine: Not yet by the Government Front Bench, but I hope it will be conceded because, in my submission, it is a reasonable and proper proposition.
I wish to comment shortly on two other matters which arise from these Regulations. Two-thirds of all Assistance grants are paid in supplementation of National Insurance benefits and pensions and in all these cases when the new rates of insurance pensions and benefits come into effect later in the year, there will be a very substantial saving to National Assistance and a large number of people coming off National Assistance and on to National Insurance benefits. I do not think it has been sufficiently emphasised that this shifting of their status causes a very considerable amount of anxiety and distress among the persons whom we are considering. They find themselves on National Assistance in one period of the year and, in


due course, for reasons they do not understand, off National Assistance and back on National Insurance in another period. I should have thought that the adjustment would involve a great deal of administrative difficulty for the National Assistance Board; it certainly causes a great deal of misunderstanding among the recipients.
There has been a great deal of congratulation of the right hon. Gentleman for the speed and acceleration with which this has been achieved and I have no doubt that he may be, at any rate relatively, entitled to it. But it is a great pity that there has to be this hiatus at all and that it should be necessary for every increase in the level of National Insurance benefits and pensions to be accompanied by an interval during which a lot of people find themselves placed upon National Assistance and then coming off that and going on the National Insurance benefits and pensions for reasons they do not understand. They come into contact with different classes of officers and on to different classifications.
I express the view that, for the purpose of determining what are the appropriate scales for National Assistance, it becomes very desirable that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should work out a quite separate and distinct cost-of-living index for old retired people. I feel quite satisfied that that is much to be desired. We have heard tonight that in considering these new scales, a modified, specially selected, cost-of-living index has been applied. I understand that certain omissions have been made from the ordinary cost-of-living index, but I would welcome for this purpose research initiated by the right hon. Gentleman and his Department and the preparation and development of a new cost-of-living index which should be applicable to old retired people alone.
It is entirely wrong that they should be in any way tied to any cost-of-living index which, for instance, is "weighted" one way or the other by items which, in their own actual experience, they know bear no relation to it at all. Although there are considerations which justify some little congratulation in regard to the whole development of National Assistance, I beg the Minister to remember that there are still many more things that we desire and that there are still many

substantial improvements that we feel can be made.

12.41 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: May I follow the point made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and say that I was hoping that the Minister would deal with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) regarding the need for a breaking-down and an analysis of the "ingredients" of the National Assistance scales. The 59s. must be the sum total of something. Why 59s? It is either the sum total of a set of domestic expenditures which reach that figure and add up to 59s. or it is merely a percentage increase on something which has gone before?
It may be that the National Assistance Board, in putting forward new scales, have started at the beginning of the National Assistance scale of 1948 and have constructed upon that, having regard to the increase in the cost of living. If they have done that it may be that they are making their mixture of impure chemicals because in the last 6½ years full employment has brought about changes in living standards in many households which previously subsisted almost on the poverty line. So it is not enough to reconstruct the scale in 1952 merely by a percentage increase on the original National Assistance scales of 1948.
If, however, the Board based their proposals on some practical experience of the domestic needs of those who come to them for assistance, then it would assist the House considerably if we knew what they were. In common with other hon. Members, I have great difficulty in knowing whether 59s. is about the right figure or not. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) said that we must admit that this was the correct figure. Well, to apply the term "correct" to an estimate of purchasing power in the wide variety of families that come for National Assistance is, I think, following arithmetic a little too far.
Neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary said a word as to how the 59s. was arrived at. I do therefore make the suggestion that when there are opportunities for discussions on details, it would be a great help if Members could see exactly how the Board came to the conclusion that their recommendations


are the ones that meet the requirements of National Assistance beneficiaries in current circumstances—though I do not hope for an immediate reply on that suggestion.

Resolved,
That the Draft National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th April, be approved.

Orders of the Day — MEAT PRODUCTS

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Meat Products Order, 1952 (S.I., 1952, No. 507), dated 11th March, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th March, be annulled.
We have had, on a previous matter, a prolonged debate in equable tones, and I do not intend unduly to disturb that equanimity in moving this Motion. In fact, I feel rather charitably disposed towards the Parliamentary Secretary tonight. Recently, I was asked to go to Durham to wind up the county council election campaign, but my party could not get a hall. However, when I learned that the Parliamentary Secretary was winding up for our opponents, I was much less anxious. In fact, we won a seat in the city for the first time in our history.
I want to suggest what I think the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind about this Order. I think he is going to tell the House that this is something we were thinking about when we were in office, which we might have done but never did, and that that is his justification for having done it. The position was, of course, that we had under consideration the amendment of the Meat Products Order the whole time I was at the Ministry of Food, but it is a very difficult matter—I am going to deal with the difficulties—and we took no action, except to produce the Webb sausage, which upset Members of the Conservative Party so much when they were on these benches. What I find very difficult to understand about the making of the present Order is how it came to be made when, in fact, it was made.
This Order has not taken into account at all the increased price of meat, which,

as the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House, would shortly be imposed. Once we have the new prices for meat, the whole of this Order must be revoked and its comprehensive schedules scrapped. The interesting thing is that the Order was made on 11th March, which was the day the Chancellor made his Budget speech. In many quarters, particularly trade quarters, for instance, the tea trade, the belief has been expressed that the Ministry of Food was quite unprepared for the Chancellor's statement.
I think this action confirms that impression, because, if the Minister of Food had known that the Chancellor was going to announce an increase in the price of meat, and that that would be made in a short time, certainly very shortly after the municipal elections, obviously, he would not have made this Order at that time. He would have awaited the increase in the price of meat, which would have a consequent effect on all the products in this schedule. This only confirms the rumour that the Minister of Food was disregarded in this matter, and that his noble co-ordinator threatened his resignation.
Turning to the Order itself, I want to raise two specific and limited questions. I notice that, in the Order, we have a definition of meat, which, for the purposes of the Order, excludes poultry, game, rabbits, hares, venison and goats' flesh. I can understand quite well why that exclusion is made. It is to take this meat outside the limits of control, but, as I read the Order, it seems that this meat can no longer count as part of the actual meat content of the meat products in this Order. If that is so, is it a drafting error, or was it intended? If it was intended, why should these particular meats be excluded from the meat content of these products if the manufacturers should choose to use them? In any case, how can a provision like this be enforced?
My second question is, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what effect this Order has upon cost margins? I use the phrase "cost margins" because I notice that in answer to a Question I asked today profit margin is treated in a very narrow form. I want to know, if possible, what effect this has on the margins of manufacturers or distributors.
As I have said, the amending of the previous Order was considered for a considerable time, but because of the very real difficulties we came up against no amending Order was, in fact, made. But, as I have indicated, I am in a charitable mood tonight, and I concede that from a drafting point of view the present Order is simpler than its predecessor, which depended on war-time legislation. But, having said that, I still think it is a difficult Order to follow except, perhaps, for my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). However, as I have conceded, it appears to me rather simpler than its predecessor.
My main objection to the present Order is the extent to which it increases prices of meat products. As the Explanatory Note says, "the prices of most meat products are increased." In fact, if we turn to the first group of prices as an example we find that pressed and cooked beef, mutton or lamb are increased by no less than 8d. a lb., that pressed and cooked ox or calf tongues are increased by no less than 11d. a lb., and that pressed and cooked pork by no less than 1s. 6d. a lb.
All these increases are, of course, quite apart from those that will be consequent upon the increase in the price of meat when that is made effective. They seem to me very substantial increases, and I think the burden is on the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why he chose this particular time to concede these price increases.
I know it must be a fine thing to be welcomed by the meat traders at Scarborough with the singing of "For he's a jolly good fellow," but the housewife is very upset at the increase in prices of these meat products at the very time when the meat ration is low and when the effects of the cuts in the imports of canned meats is beginning to have an effect in the shops. She now finds that she is not only getting considerably less meat and meat products than before, but that she is also having to pay more for what she gets. As I say, the burden is on the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why these price increases should now be imposed.
The amending Order also decontrols a number of products. I do not want to say more about decontrol than this. I

think the burden again is on the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why he has chosen this time to decontrol these particular products knowing that decontrol will lead, as it has led, to increased prices. It is by Government action that supplies are being limited now, and I should have thought this was a most inopportune moment to decontrol even this limited range of meat products. Apart from these two factors there is a good deal to be said for the Order. It extends controls. I would point out this somewhat unexpected development from this Government to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling). It does some of the things we were intending to do, and as far as it does that I welcome it.

Sir William Darling: It does not extend control to haggis.

Mr. Wiley: I thought the hon. Gentleman's interests went beyond haggis, but perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will explain the specific purpose of that decontrol.
What the Order does is to extend the range of price control. That is a good thing, and it is a good thing, for instance, to price control such meat products as Continental sausages. It also extends control in another way which, in principle at any rate, is desirable, and that is by extending the range about meat content requirements. But the question I put rather gently to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether this is quite the time to do that—because he made this point against me on a previous occasion—that while meat is short is it right and proper at that time to limit the availability of the canned meat products by increasing the meat content, particularly as the Government themselves by Government action are responsible for the reduction in these supplies.
I should also point out to the House that there is tucked away in this Order a price reduction to come into force in September, but because of the price increases in meat that will be still-born. Nevertheless, I would like to acknowledge this small endeavour of the Ministry even although it should be still-born, to reduce prices.
Finally, a word about sausages whose composition and price is controlled by this Order. For the purposes of this


Order sausages become a specified food marked "(d)"and this is what the Seventh Schedule, paragraph 4, of the Order provides:
Any skim milk used in the manufacture of a specified food marked '(d)'
That is, in the old terminology of the previous Ministry, a sausage. We were more explicit in those days
shall be deemed to be the equivalent to 5/3 of its own weight in meat for the purpose of assessing the meat content of the food, provided that the quantity of such milk powder does not exceed 6 per cent. of the total weight of the food.
When, in the last Parliament, the Minister of Food made the amending Order about the sausage he was met with indignation by those who then sat on these benches. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) denounced this as "grossly misleading." He went on to say:
I am not over-stating my case when I say this is a gross swindle of the public … the Ministry of Food seems to have gone rather mad on this. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1951; Vol. 485, c. 1696.]
He was not alone. He was supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport who expressed himself in equally strong terms. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury also classed this as a swindle and went on to relate it, in some way or other, to the closed shop issue and the Durham County Council, which must have made it particularly abhorrent to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will hon. Gentlemen behind the Parliamentary Secretary be consistent about this, or are they going to reveal that the so-called Prayer campaign of last year was just a farce. To use such words as "a swindle" is certainly to use very harsh language. But now the Parliamentary Secretary is asking them to support precisely the same definition.
As a matter of fact, it is worse than this, because the beef sausage, in addition to being for the purposes of this Order "a specified food marked '(d)',"is also "a specified food marked (f)'."
In assessing the meat content of a specified food marked '(f),' any fat of vegetable origin used in its manufacture shall be deemed to be meat for this purpose, provided the total quantity of such fat so used does not exceed 25 per cent. of the prescribed minimum meat content.
On the occasion when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the meat content of sausages, in November, 1950,

he expressed himself with his usual vigour. He said:
I will not weary the House
Let me assure him that he never wearies the House—
with any discourse on nutrition but, whereas oil has certain values in some forms, most of them of a lubricant rather than a nutritional character … I suggest that it would be more honest in an Order of this kind, laying down a minimum, if, in fact, the minimum really related to meat and did not permit vegetable oil to masquerade as meat for the Minister's purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1510.]
Where does the Parliamentary Secretary stand this morning?

Sir Herbert Williams: He is sitting.

Mr. Willey: He will have an opportunity to stand later.
The Order which he is now defending does precisely that which he complained of on that occasion. If he believed what he then said, why does he not take the opportunity, now that he has the responsibility and the authority, to alter the definition? If the sausage masqueraded then as a meat sausage, how does it come about that he is allowing it to do so again by virtue of the Order he has made and now expects the House to approve?
I said that the definition was precisely the same. In fact, that is not quite correct. The Explanatory Note states that the restriction on the use of soya is removed. Now we not only have the vegetable oils that were used before, but we have soya thrown in for good measure. I do not complain, but I wonder what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say in view of what he previously said to the House.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accede to the wishes of the meat traders who gave him such an uproarious reception, because they have demanded the revocation of this Order. I ask him to endeavour to get back his self-respect, and, finally, I ask him to show some regard for the housewives of this country and to avoid, where possible, any price increase.

1.4 a.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I beg to second the Motion.
It is unfortunate that this debate has occurred at such a late hour, but let it be said that we desired to debate the


Order one night last week when the House went very late and we thought it was only fair that at that hour the Prayer should be postponed. We still find ourselves in the unfortunate position of having to discuss this Order at a late hour, but in view of its importance we must pray against it on this occasion.
I want to admit straightaway that some time ago, certainly during the lifetime of the last Government, this Order might have been justified. I feel there was a period when there was a real need for it to be introduced. At that time there was a large importation of canned goods and prepared meats from many parts of the Continent, and manufacturers and retailers were "feeling a draught" because they had not the opportunity, owing to the low meat content fixed for canned and prepared meats of any kind, even sausages, to produce articles equal to the quality of the food coming from the Continent. Therefore, they claimed that there should be some improvement in meat content, and that there should be higher prices not only to bring these into line with the Continental meats.
But I suggest that all this has changed since the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his two announcements about the cut in the import of canned and prepared meats. Since those two cuts were made imports have been reduced to an infinitesimal amount. So, at one and the same time, the Minister of Food is saying higher meat content and higher prices, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is saying no more importation. We consider that by this Order the form of protection and monopoly is not for the consumer interest. At the same time that the Order is introduced and the meat content laid down no alternative qualities are mentioned and no lower prices are available for people who want an article which is not of as high a quality.
It is significant that this Order is being prayed against on a day when we have been discussing unemployment in the Lancashire textile areas. There will be many people in the Lancashire industrial areas who, a month or two from now, or at all events by the time the Order comes into operation, will be hard put to it to pay for meat of any kind at all. When I think of the increased

prices in this Order, the decreases in food subsidies, which will cause further increases in prices and add to that the Minister of Agriculture's latest announcement, and remember that in eight or nine months the prices of rationed meats will have gone up 8d. or 9d. a pound, and take into consideration the general rise in the cost of living and unemployment, particularly in the textile areas, I say that there is no justification whatever for this Order, whatever justification there might have been for it in the past.
Now about some of the practical aspects of the Order as I see them from my humble association with the trade. Will extra meat be available to enable the decision to allow a larger meat content to be met? My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), has referred to speeches of the Parliamentary Secretary in the past. I would refer to what he said on 13th November, 1950. He asked:
Has any additional meat been made available for this purpose?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November, 1950; Vol. 480, c. 1510.]
If that additional meat is not available then it is unfair to the home manufacturer and the home trader. We should have the right to ask the hon. Gentleman now that question which he asked my hon. Friend in reverse circumstances in November, 1950. It might be all right in August and September and down perhaps to Christmas. As soon as Christmas has turned and then to July, when supplies of home produced cattle are not available, he will have great difficulty in providing manufacturers with the increased meat content of the items in this Order.
Bearing in mind circumstances arising from incidents like the Australian drought I suggest it is doubtful whether meat can be provided to bring the Order into operation. The Ministry of Food are now using bacon factory pigs to maintain the present ration. If they are in straits like that in April they will have great difficulty in meeting the demands of this order. Will there be enough manufacturing meat to make up for the lack of Continental supplies imposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I would suggest that what we call bobby calves should be fed until they are ready for rationing or, alternatively, that they might be reared until they are beef rather than they should find their way into manufacturing at present. I am certain that they


would meet the demand of the public more than if they were used merely for manufacturing purposes.
From my experience, and from knowledge passed to me by other members of the trade, I assert that in the case of pressed meats it is absolutely impossible to have a 95 per cent. meat content and use it properly. Most people buy quarter or half pounds, sliced. This is a small matter for the House of Commons, but it is a serious matter for people who have to deal with these things. It is impossible to slice a 95 per cent. content or to ensure that the whole of the mould of pressed meat shall be of 95 per cent. meat content. Surely, sooner or later, some trader will be in a mess about that, because a meat inspector or an enforcement officer on his track will take a sample and will say that far from there being a 95 per cent. meat content, the content might be 10 per cent.
I suggest that New Zealand and South America will never make a 95 per cent. meat content in pressed meats of any kind. Before the war, New Zealand used to send us a content of about 85 per cent. I am giving away a trade secret when I say that it was very common for traders to let down that 85 per cent. and make two moulds out of one, and that they had a very good sale even then. I say that purposely to stress my point that the 95 per cent. figure is totally impossible.
The Order deals with imported ham, on which there is no price control at a time when we are cutting supplies right off. In future, imported hams will not reach the ordinary consumer, and particularly the lower income groups, but will find their ways into catering establishments in the way of hotels and restaurants. I could go on ad infinitum with these practical points, but I do not want to take up the time of the House too long. I suggest, however, that the Order was made in consultation, perhaps, with the large packers, but certainly without consultation with small manufacturers and retailers at any point.
We heard a lot from the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. W. Fletcher) this afternoon about a breach in the Australian contracts and the difficulties in which it was landing this country. But the present British Government set the example in breach of contract last November, when contracts had been signed with Germany, France and Denmark

for food that took a month to process and which was made ready for shipping. Those contracts were broken overnight, and the importers were refused licences. How can we expect other nations, even in the Commonwealth, to keep our contracts if our Government break them in that way?
My hon. Friend has said that had the Order been introduced when a Labour Government were in power, we should have found the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) having a whale of a time about the terms of the Order; the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would have been having a whale of a time, although the word "whale" would have been spelt differently; and we should have found the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gazing open-eyed at the Despatch Box opposite, with wrath exploding within him, at the terms of an Order of this kind.
How are we to expect ordinary traders, in small shops in the back streets, to understand a complicated Order of this nature? Imagine them wading through the Order, from one page to a schedule, and finding that (e), (d) or (f) applies and then having to turn over to another schedule to find how much meat they are to put into a sausage. The whole thing is ludicrous in the extreme.
Whilst these things have applied in the past, there is no excuse for continuing them now, and I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary should seriously look once more at the Order, because it will be completely out of date a few weeks from now. The Order talks about the 14th or 15th of September. By that time we shall feel the full effect of the cut in the food subsidies; we shall have the full effect of the increases as a result of the new agreement of the Ministry of Agriculture with farmers. I seriously suggest that this Order will never come into operation, and that new prices will have to be considered long before that time. It has been a waste of the time of the country and of the House for this Order to be laid.

1.21 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who seconded this Prayer, has


painted a picture of what he says would have been the reaction of my hon. Friends had a Labour Government introduced this Order. I will shortly explain that the Labour Government were about to introduce this Order.

Mr. F. Willey: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to say that the Labour Government was about to introduce an Order which they were not about to introduce?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): That is not a matter for me to judge.

Dr. Hill: I am sorry that the mood of charity which the hon. Member declared himself as possessing earlier has departed so soon. But I repeat that, as the late Government were about to introduce an Order on the lines of the present Order, it is futile to contemplate the indignation which the hon. Gentleman says would have been aroused in my hon. Friends had that Order been made. That Order would have been made but for the impending Election.

Mr. Royle: I opened my speech by saying that the Order would have been justified in those days, in the different circumstances.

Dr. Hill: I accept that, and will be dealing with it a little later in my observations.
The hon. Member also referred to the complexity of this Order, and the difficulty which a small trader would have in understanding it. I have a great deal of sympathy with him on that point. But he ought to have listened to his hon. Friend, who, in the one kindly thing that he said in his observations, made clear that this Order is shorter and more simple than the Order of 1948 which it replaces.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) discarding the pallid indignation which he generally assumes on these occasions, described himself as being in a charitable mood; and well he might be, for this is just the final stage in a sequence of events with which he was intimately associated. He well knows that the recasting of the Order of 1948 was long overdue, and that it was something which the Government of which he was a member might well have undertaken.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, referred, with justice, to certain observations of my hon. Friends and myself on the sausage, and the mode of describing the meat content of that mysterious article. I say to him that this Order takes within itself the requirements in relation to the sausage existing when it was made. When it becomes possible, as I hope it will soon, to modify these requirements in the direction of greater meat content, both of beef and pork sausages, we shall certainly dispense with that old and misleading formula under which dried milk powder and vegetable oil are permitted to be deemed to be meat for the purposes of the percentage; and we shall put into practical form the criticisms which we properly directed against the formula applied to the sausage in the Order as it stood last year, and embodied, I admit, without change in this Order. We would not wish to add to the complexities of the description of sausage content unless and until it becomes possible to vary the actual meat content of the sausage. When that moment comes the hon. Member will find, possibly to his dismay, that what we said in Opposition will be made effective on this side of the House.

Mr. F. Willey: Surely the difference between us was that the hon. Gentleman said then that it was wrong to allow such a sausage to masquerade as a meat sausage. He had the opportunity, when recasting, as he says, this Order, of dealing with that point. May I take the occasion of making quite clear to him before he develops his argument further, that I raised two specific points about the Order and pointed out that, in some respects, I approved of it. The points to which I drew his attention were the price and specific matters of decontrol. He knows as well as I do that there was no question of either being considered by my right hon. Friend or myself.

Dr. Hill: I suggest that it is quite unnecessary for the hon. Member to repeat his speech; I will deal with the points he raised. At the moment I am dealing with vegetable oil and dried milk powder masquerading as meat in the formula of the sausage as contained in the Order last year.
The hon. Member for Salford, West clearly speaks with great knowledge on this matter. I had an opportunity of


meeting his father and his brother last week at a conference to which I went publicly to espouse and defend the policy of Her Majesty's Government instead of sending a telegram. Whereas the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, would have us believe that the Order he seeks to annul is wickedness itself, the hon. Member who seconded the Prayer told the House that it was all right until a month ago. I quote his words; it was all right until a month ago—I am not insisting on the period, I know quite well what he means. The hon. Member says that only in the last month or so has it become sufficiently bad to condemn. He referred to the new factor of the reduced importation of canned meats from the Continent. He said, indeed, that they had become infinitesimal or had been abolished.

Mr. Royle: Infinitesimal.

Dr. Hill: Oh no, the reduction of canned meats to 75 per cent. of the figure obtaining before the cut is not to make those imports infinitesimal. The reduction by a quarter does not make them infinitesimal. There has been a reduction, admittedly—

Mr. F. Willey: More than a quarter.

Dr. Hill: In the case of canned meat products—for fear the hon. Member either did not hear or does not recall—the reduction was by one quarter; in the case of canned ham it was substantially more. The cut in ham was by three-quarters to a quarter, but in the case of canned meat the reduction was not as great as he himself suggested.
The hon. Member for Salford, West went on to some practical points which I am anxious to deal with in the time available to me. He asked me to prophesy about additional manufacturing meat. He will not be surprised if I resist his invitation to prophesy about the future position of meat generally and of manufacturing meat in particular. He said that we were driving pork from bacon to the meat ration to sustain it.
That is not true. The pork that goes to the meat ration or manufacture consists of bacon rejects and there is no deliberate policy on the part of the Government, just as there was no deliberate policy on the part of the previous Government, to drive pork away from bacon. The hon. Member went on to refer to the impossibility of slicing a meat product of 95 per cent.

meat content. All I can say is that those representatives of the trade whom we consulted prior to the preparation of this Order did not share his opinion.
I want to remind the House of the real justification for putting this Order forward now. I admit forthwith that the Order does not embody such increases in the prices of meat as may follow from the pronouncement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the reduced "ceiling" of food subsidies, and clearly an amendment of this Order will, in due course, be necessary to meet that point.
The Order of 1948 which has hitherto governed the position had a war-time derivation. In those days home-produced products were rigidly controlled with the main purpose of spreading the available meat over the widest possible quantity of products. On the other hand, in the field of imports, the purpose was to secure the maximum concentration of meat so as to take the fullest advantage of the limited shipping space available. These two opposing derivations led to the complexities and anomalies in this Order in the years since the war; and when in July, 1950, the Government purchase of canned meat imports ceased—except for canned corned meat—and private purchase was resumed, obvious anomalies arose. For one thing, imported items not included in Government purchases in previous years were not price-controlled and became admissible, quite free of price control; with the result that, for example, imported jellied veal was free of price control and home-produced jellied veal was price-controlled.
Moreover, the home manufacturer was precluded in some cases from manufacturing products which were being imported, notably pork in natural juice. Again, some imported prices were fixed so low as to preclude the importation of available meat products at a time when we needed them. It was therefore decided, in the autumn of 1950, to bring this obsolete Order up to date and to place the home producer on a level with the importer and the foreign producer in this matter.
I admit that difficulties soon arose, notably the negotiations with the Argentine; those steady, but persistent, negotiations that took a year and 10 days for their completion. But in the spring of 1951, discussions began on the instructions of my right hon. and gallant


Friend's predecessor, aided by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, between the Ministry and manufacturers, with a view to a revision of the Order to bring it up to date. The collection of costings began, too, in the spring of 1951. By October, 1951, the material was ready for the revised Order, but the General Election came—and this is no time at which to discuss the motives which led the party opposite to go to the country at that time.
The General Election came, and, inevitably, delay followed, but in March this year the Order came into operation. So the hon. Gentleman who anticipated that it would never come into operation has lost sight of the fact that it is in operation today, and, judging by the attendance on the benches opposite, I doubt whether the Order will be annulled this morning.
What are the purposes of the Order? They are to bring prices up to date as near as may be, and there are some increases of price involved. The increases of price relate to increases since 1948 in costs apart from meat—costs of labour, of canning, of transport, of ingredients other than meat. For even though there was an amendment of the 1948 Order in July of last year, it was concerned merely with translating into the Order the increased price of meat.
Secondly, the Order has relaxed control where control is unnecessary. It may disturb the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, when he learns that, in the field of decontrol, there has been, for the most part, no increase, and there has been, in some cases, a decrease of price following decontrol, showing that the controls which it has now been possible to abolish were unnecessary in any case and were kept on for the sake of control.
Thirdly, the Order has applied price control equally to the home product and the imported product; something which, I am sure, friends of the hon. Gentleman will appreciate is fair and reasonable. Fourthly, it has specified the minimum meat contents over a wider field. I believe that to be a sensible and desirable thing to do—to ensure for the purchaser a guarantee of a minimum meat content in practically all the products covered by this Order. It permits the home manufacturer to manufacture anything that is allowed to be imported—equally a measure of common fairness—and it

gives up defining the indefinable. This is no hour at which to discuss the contents of the haggis, but I give that as an example of a nutritious article which is indefinable in terms of an Order to be laid before this House.
One doubt—let me frankly admit it—which confronted my right hon. and gallant Friend was whether to abolish this Order in its entirety, or to seek to bring it up to date and make it reasonably comprehensive. There is no midway course, for to have had a situation in which some items were controlled and some uncontrolled might have led to the diversion of raw materials into those commodities not subject to price control at the expense of those subject to price control.
My right hon. and gallant Friend had very considerable doubts on this subject. It would not have filled me with dismay had, in fact—perhaps I am now exaggerating—the benches opposite been so strong as to annul this Order, for there is very considerable doubt in our minds as to whether this Order should have been made. It has been made for, I hope, a relatively short time to deal with the anomalies which the previous Government left unresolved, but it is hoped that at an early date it will be possible to sweep away control from this field.
As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it was largely the cuts in imports, which had to be imposed as a result of the disastrous condition in which the party opposite left the country's finances, which made us feel that the moment was inopportune to do a thing we wished to do and which we will do at the first appropriate opportunity. But I do not defend this Order with any sense of pride. Indeed, it is with a certain reluctance that I defend an Order which seeks to clear up the appalling mess into which this field had got. But I hope that the fact that I do defend it with moderate and charitable vigour tonight will not be taken as expressing approval of this kind of restriction in this kind of field. The sooner we can be done with it the better, and my right hon. Friend intends at the first opportunity, which I hope will be soon, to release this field.
The hon. Member asked me about the definition of the word "meat." I wondered, as he raised that point, with what wording he would replace this definition: "Meat means bacon, ham,


beef, mutton, lamb, veal, pork and edible offal." What else does he think the word "meat" could be defined as meaning, even in the legal phraseology of this Order? That is a definition which is so approaching common sense as almost to make one suspicious when it appears in the interpretation clause of an Order. All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman, as a rule so vigorous and eloquent, confesses his inability to attack his own child by relying on a criticism of so obvious and sensible a definition of that all too rare commodity, meat.

1.44 a.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I do not propose to detain the House very long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not want remarks like that from across the floor because I am entitled, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Parliamentary Secretary for further information. I especially do not want to be interrupted by the somnambulant sounds from the hon. Gentleman opposite. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary minds my rising, and I certainly do not mind his having the right to reply again on the matters I want to raise in relation to this Order.
I have no intention of delaying the House for a great length of time though I could prolong my speech by reminding the Parliamentary Secretary in greater detail of the speech he made in November, 1950, on the subject of sausages. It is quite easy to paraphrase that speech. The exact wording which he criticised at that time is now embodied in the Order. I am not concerned with recriminations here, but although the Parliamentary Secretary may know very little about twisting sausages I cannot claim the same for him about words. All that he has been saying tonight has been a clever bluff, a clever bit of camouflage. In reality he has seen the light. The Order to which he is a party is an act of penitence in spite of the improbability of him saying that he was wrong.
The Parliamentary Secretary has agreed that the price increases in this Order do not include the potential increases in respect of the Budget proposals. I do not want the public to be deceived. I want them to know beyond ambiguity that there are further increases coming. It does not matter whether the Parliamentary Secretary has to eat his words. What

matters is that the public should know that there are more increases for them to swallow. I want them to know that the price increases under this Order have nothing to do with the price increases that will take place in consequence of the Budget proposals in spite of the coincidence in date.
This Order does, in certain cases, improve the standard of certain meat products because the percentage of meat content has been improved. For that we are glad. We do not yield to the Parliamentary Secretary in our desire for a higher standard of food. But how long will this last? Can the Parliamentary Secretary guarantee that the meat content will remain as it is in this Order when the peak home-killed meat has gone during this year? The question is, where will the meat come from and how will it be secured? Imports have been cut, in accordance with the Budget proposals, and the meat content must be increased.
But where are we to get the meat from when our home-killed meat has ceased to supply the quantity we need in the coming season? The supply cannot come from New Zealand, because we have not got the refrigerator ships to bring it. Is the supply to come from the Argentine? The Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong, but I think the Protocol has already expired, and I understand that there are no negotiations with the Argentine at the moment which will enable us to have the meat when the home-killed supply has finished.
What a pity that the Ministry of Food cannot persuade the meat importers to implement their desire to eliminate bulk purchase. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary: Is it not true that they would rather not undertake the task on behalf of the Ministry of Food in the Argentine because they know that they would have to settle at a higher price than we settled, which would contradict their own argument in respect of bulk buying?

Dr. Hill: That is not true.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Five Minutes to Two o'Clock a.m. till this day.